Agenda packet — Santa Monica City Council, February 24, 2026 (part 2 of 4)

other expenses coordinated with a candidate or committee, loans, tickets to political fundraisers, etc.

4. Who is considered an officer of the City?
An “officer” is anyone who may make, participate in making, or attempt to influence a decision in the proceeding or who exercises authority over officers who may do so. This includes elected officials, members of appointed boards and commissions, the City Manager, and any individual who is a candidate for elected office or who has been a candidate in the twelve months prior to the decision. This definition is included on the Disclosure Form.

5. When should the disclosure occur?
The Disclosure Form must be completed (1) by a party to a contract with the City (or that party’s agent) at the time the party submits a response to a Request for Proposal or other competitive solicitation, enters into contract negotiations with the City, or executes a contract with the City, whichever is earliest; or (2) by a party to a license, permit, or other entitlement proceeding before the City at the time the party (or their agent) submits the license, permit, or entitlement application to the City. The party (or their agent) must submit a supplemental form if they make any new reportable contributions while the same contract, license, permit, or other entitlement is being considered. The party (or their agent) must also use the form if they need to correct any previously submitted form.

Parties are solely responsible for completing the form accurately, and could face penalties for failure to do so. The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is the body who enforces violations of the Levine Act. If a party is uncertain about whether they are required to report or combine a contribution, they should consult with their attorney.

Nothing herein constitutes legal advice and individuals are urged to consult with their own attorney regarding the requirements of the law. To the extent there is any inconsistency, the language of the Levine Act and FPPC Regulations govern over this notice. Resources for officers, parties, participants, and agents, are available on the FPPC’s website at https://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-to-play-limits-and-prohibitions.html

4.G.c
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: 4LEAF - Levine Act [Revision 2] (7489 : Award RFP #453 to Three Firms for Contractual Services Related to Plan Related to Plan

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

OAKS INITIATIVE NOTICE

NOTICE TO APPLICANTS, BIDDERS, PROPOSERS

AND OTHERS SEEKING DISCRETIONARY PERMITS, CONTRACTS,

OR OTHER BENEFITS FROM THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Santa Monica’s voters adopted a City Charter amendment commonly known as the Oaks Initiative. The Oaks Initiative requires the City to provide this notice and information about the Initiative’s requirements. You may obtain a full copy of the Initiative’s text from the City Clerk.

This information is required by City Charter Article XXII—Taxpayer Protection. It prohibits a public official from receiving, and a person or entity from conferring, specified personal benefits or campaign advantages from a person or entity after the official votes, or otherwise takes official action, to award a “public benefit” to that person or entity. The prohibition applies within and outside of the geographical boundaries of Santa Monica.

All persons or entities applying or receiving public benefits from the City of Santa Monica shall provide the names of trustees, directors, partners, and officers, and names of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation or revenue interest. An exception exists for persons serving in those capacities as volunteers, without compensation, for organizations exempt from income taxes under Section 501(c)(3), (4), or (6), of the Internal Revenue Code. However, this exception does not apply if the organization is a political committee or controls political committees. Examples of a “public benefit” include public contracts to provide goods or services worth more than $25,000 or a land use approval worth more than $25,000 over a 12-month period.

In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, the City compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any person or persons who is seeking a “public benefit.” If the “public benefit” is sought by an entity, rather than an individual person, the information includes the name of every person who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity. Therefore, if you are seeking a “public benefit” covered by the Oaks Initiative, you must supply that information on the Oaks Initiative Disclosure Form. This information must be updated and supplied every 12 months.

4.G.d
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: 4LEAF - Oaks (7489 : Award RFP #453 to Three Firms for Contractual Services Related to Plan Related to Plan Review)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

OAKS INITIATIVE DISCLOSURE FORM
In order to facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Oaks Initiative, the City compiles and maintains certain information. That information includes the name of any person or persons who is seeking a “public benefit.” If the “public benefit” is sought by an entity, rather than an individual person, the information includes the name of every person who is: (a) trustee, (b) director, (c) partner, (d) officer, or has (e) more than a ten percent interest in the entity.

Public benefits include:

1. Personal services contracts in excess of $25,000 over any 12-month period;

2. Sale of material, equipment or supplies to the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;

3. Purchase, sale or lease of real property to or from the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;

4. Non-competitive franchise awards with gross revenue of $50,000 or more in any 12-month period;

5. Land use variance, special use permit, or other exception to an established land use plan, where the decision has a value in excess of $25,000;

6. Tax “abatement, exception, or benefit” of a value in excess of $5,000 in any 12- month period; or

7. Payment of “cash or specie” of a net value to the recipient of $10,000 in any 12- month period.

Name(s) of persons or entities receiving public benefit:

Name(s) of trustees, directors, partners, and officers:

Name(s) of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation, or revenue interest:

Prepared by: ____________________________Title: __________________________ Signature: ______________________________________ Date: ________________ Email: ____________________________________ Phone: ____________________ FOR CITY USE ONLY:

Bid/PO/Contract # ____________________________ Permit # ___________________________

4.G.d
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: 4LEAF - Oaks (7489 : Award RFP #453 to Three Firms for Contractual Services Related to Plan Related to Plan Review) City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CALIFORNIA LEVINE ACT DISCLOSURE
The Levine Act prohibits City Officers from participating in any action related to a contract, license, permit, or entitlement if such Officer received campaign contributions totaling more than $500 within the previous twelve months, and for twelve months following the date of a final decision, from a party or participant to the proceeding, or their agent.

Section 84308(a)(4) of the Levine Act defines an "Officer" as follows: “Officer” means any elected or appointed officer of an agency, any alternate to an elected or appointed officer of an agency, and any candidate for elective office in an agency. The term “Officer” is further defined 2 Cal.

Code Regs. Section 18438.1, which states:

An officer of an agency includes only those persons who make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use their official position to influence a decision in the license, permit, or entitlement for use proceeding, or who exercise authority or budgetary control over the agency or officers who may do so, and:
(1) Serve in an elected position, including an official appointed to an elected position due to an interim vacancy or an election otherwise canceled because the official was the sole candidate for the position;
(2) Serve as a member of a board or commission;
(3) Serve as the chief executive of a state agency, or county, city or district of any kind; or (4) Have decision making authority with respect to the proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use and is also a candidate for elected office or has been a candidate for elective office in the 12 months prior to the proceeding.

A list of Santa Monica Elected Officials and members of boards and commissions can be found at the following links. The party making this certification is responsible for determining whether a recipient of a political contribution is a City Officer prior to completing this form. https://www.smgov.net/departments/council/
https://www.santamonica.gov/departments/rent-control
https://www.smgov.net/boards/
Have you, your company, or any agent on behalf of you or your company, made any political contributions of more than $500 to any City Officer in the twelve months preceding the date of the submission of your application or proposal? ____YES ____ NO
Name of Councilmember or City Officer: _________________________________ Name of Contributor: _________________________________________________ Date(s) of Contribution(s): ____________________________________________ Amount(s) ________________________________________________________ Please specify below and/or add additional sheet(s) to identify additional Councilmembers or City Officers to whom you and/or your agents made campaign contributions.

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: TRB - Levine Act [Revision 2] (7489 : Award RFP #453 to Three Firms for Contractual Services Related to Plan Related to Plan City of Santa Monica Levine Act Disclosure Form
Answering YES does not preclude the City of Santa Monica from awarding a contract, license, permit, or entitlement or taking any subsequent action related to the item. It does, however, preclude the identified City Officer from participating in any actions related to such item.

By signing below, you certify you also agree to disclose to the City any future contributions made to Councilmembers or other City Officers by you or your agent(s) after the date of signing this disclosure form, and within 12 months following the approval, renewal, or extension of the requested contract, license, permit, or entitlement.

I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIATHAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUEAND CORRECT.

Signed: ____________________________ Date: ____________________ Print Name: _________________________ Title: _____________________ Company: __________________________
Additional Disclosures:

Please note this form is a public record and subject to a California Public Records Act request.

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: TRB - Levine Act [Revision 2] (7489 : Award RFP #453 to Three Firms for Contractual Services Related to Plan Related to Plan SANTA MONICA CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
TO: Public
FROM: City Attorney’s Office
RE: Levine Act Disclosure Form
The Levine Act (Government Code 84308) is a California law aimed at preventing “pay to play” practices by prohibiting parties, participants, and their agents in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement from contributing more than $500 to an officer of the City during a 12-month period. The prohibition applies to any 12-month period while the proceeding is pending and for 12 months following the date a final decision is rendered in the proceeding.

State law requires a party to a proceeding to disclose any contributions exceeding an aggregate $500 that the party and their agents have made to an officer of the City within the preceding 12 months. The Disclosure Form is intended to assist City officials with recognizing when they have an obligation to disclose and recuse themselves, and to aid parties with their disclosure obligations.

1. To what sort of proceedings is the disclosure form applicable? The Levine Act applies to all discretionary entitlements and contracts, with the exception of labor contracts, personal employment contracts, and contracts that must be awarded to the lowest responsive/responsible bidder. It does not apply to ministerial approvals.

For instance, the Levine Act applies to the following:
• Building and development permits
• Conditional use permits
• Contracts generally (unless an exception applies):
o Real property contracts for purchase, sale, lease
o Contract amendments
o Settlement agreements
o Contracts for goods, services, professional services that are not awarded pursuant to a competitive process
• Public street abandonments
• Private development plans
• Professional license revocations
• Rezoning of specific real estate parcels
• Event permits
• Rulemaking procedures affecting a particular industry where only a small number of businesses are affected
• Special district formation proceedings involving the creation of a special use or benefit to the person in the district
• Tentative subdivision and parcel maps

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: TRB - Levine Act [Revision 2] (7489 : Award RFP #453 to Three Firms for Contractual Services Related to Plan Related to Plan

Page 2 ends

• Zoning variances
• Vacation of a public easement across private property • Pre-applications, such as for General Plan Amendment, considered by the legislative body prior to filing of formal application
• Contracts entered under the City Manager’s Authority
• Closed session items that may result in a contract/settlement agreement approved by Council (real estate or litigation)
It does not apply to:
• Contracts under $50,000
• Contracts where no party receives financial compensation • Contracts between two or more public agencies
• Competitively bid contracts that are required by law, agency policy, or agency rule to be awarded pursuant to a competitive process
• Purely ministerial decisions
• General policy decisions or rules where the interests affected are many and diverse
• Ordinances and resolutions (except items like development agreements adopted by ordinance)
• Ballot measures
• Departmental policies
• Council rules
• Labor contracts and project labor agreements
• Personal employment contracts
• Allocation of resources in the City budget

2. Who is required to disclose?
A “party” to a proceeding is any person who files an application for, or is the subject of, a proceeding. In general, a person or company who applies for a permit, license, or right to use property in a particular way, which requires the City’s discretionary approval, will qualify as a party.

Parties are also required to disclose contributions by their agents. An “agent” is someone who (1) represents a party to a proceeding for compensation; and (2) appears before or otherwise communicates with the City for the purpose of influencing the pending proceeding. This can include law firms, architects, engineers, consultants, and similar entities. Both the individual and their employer or firm are considered “agents.” A party should also disclose contributions of other entities majority owned by the party, as well as contributions of any other entity whose contributions it directs or controls.

3. What must be disclosed?
A party must disclose campaign contributions over $500 made in the prior twelve months.

A “contribution” is anything of value for which the party has not received full consideration, including money, nonmonetary items, payments made for advertising or

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: TRB - Levine Act [Revision 2] (7489 : Award RFP #453 to Three Firms for Contractual Services Related to Plan Related to Plan

Page 3 ends

other expenses coordinated with a candidate or committee, loans, tickets to political fundraisers, etc.

4.G.e
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: TRB - Levine Act [Revision 2] (7489 : Award RFP #453 to Three Firms for Contractual Services Related to Plan Related to Plan

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

OAKS INITIATIVE NOTICE

NOTICE TO APPLICANTS, BIDDERS, PROPOSERS

AND OTHERS SEEKING DISCRETIONARY PERMITS, CONTRACTS,

4.G.f
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: TRB - Oaks (7489 : Award RFP #453 to Three Firms for Contractual Services Related to Plan Related to Plan Review)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Public benefits include:

1. Personal services contracts in excess of $25,000 over any 12-month period;

2. Sale of material, equipment or supplies to the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;

3. Purchase, sale or lease of real property to or from the City in excess of $25,000 over a 12- month period;

4. Non-competitive franchise awards with gross revenue of $50,000 or more in any 12-month period;

5. Land use variance, special use permit, or other exception to an established land use plan, where the decision has a value in excess of $25,000;

6. Tax “abatement, exception, or benefit” of a value in excess of $5,000 in any 12- month period; or

7. Payment of “cash or specie” of a net value to the recipient of $10,000 in any 12- month period.

Name(s) of persons or entities receiving public benefit:

Name(s) of trustees, directors, partners, and officers:

Name(s) of persons with more than a 10% equity, participation, or revenue interest:

Bid/PO/Contract # ____________________________ Permit # ___________________________

4.G.f
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: TRB - Oaks (7489 : Award RFP #453 to Three Firms for Contractual Services Related to Plan Related to Plan Review) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: February 24, 2026
Agenda Item: 4.H
1 of 6
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Oscar Santiago, Director, Finance Department
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.24, Purchasing System, to Modernize the City's Policies, Practices and Procedures
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

2. Introduce for first reading the attached Ordinance amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 2.24, Purchasing System, to update the City’s procurement policies, practices, and procedures; and

3. Direct the City Manager to take necessary steps to establish a modernized procurement system.

Summary
The City’s procurement system has not been comprehensively updated in several decades. As a result, the system requires modernization to address fragmented processes, and limited flexibility that slows project delivery and leads to inconsistent practices across departments. The legacy policies, complex workflows, and inconsistent processes can hinder timely contracting, and increase internal administrative burdens. Combined, these existing challenges hinder the City’s ability to act swiftly, collectively limit the organization’s capacity to adapt to the inflationary environment affecting the cost of goods and services, and impacts our ability to effectively support operational needs.

4.H
Packet Pg. 183
2 of 6
To streamline processes and build flexibility to adjust procurement guidelines and thresholds over time, staff has been working on advancing a three-part procurement modernization framework consisting of:

1. A new Procurement Ordinance establishing the centralized purchasing system and defining the roles and responsibilities of City officials.

2. A revised Procurement Policy, adopted annually by Council as part of the City’s Fiscal Policies, that establishes the procurement award thresholds and other requirements.

3. A comprehensive Administrative Instruction (AI) that operationalizes and provides guidance on day-to-day procurement activities for staff.

This framework would create a clearer hierarchy of authority, improve efficiency and ensure the City can adapt procurement practices and thresholds as the organization and economic conditions evolve, while maintaining fairness and transparency in the procurement process.

To begin the process, staff now recommends that Council introduce for first reading the ordinance that updates Municipal Code Chapter 2.24 - Purchasing System, to establish modernized procurement policies, practices and procedures. The proposed ordinance allows for the establishment of an updated purchasing framework.

If approved, the ordinance would then allow staff the ability to bring forward for annual City Council review and adoption a recommended procurement policy, which would be added as part of the City’s Fiscal Policies. This review is envisioned to occur during the City’s annual budget review process.

Finally, once the City Council adopts the procurement policy, implementation of the policy would be governed by a set of updated Administrative Instructions that details how the procurement process is to be implemented by staff on a day-to-day basis.

Background
The City’s current procurement provisions are dispersed across sections of the Municipal Code, administrative instructions, and manuals. This fragmentation has resulted in inconsistent application of procurement rules, delays in the acquisition of

4.H
Packet Pg. 184
3 of 6
goods and services critical to program and service delivery, delays in contract execution, and limited flexibility to adjust thresholds without amending the Municipal Code.

To address these challenges, Finance has engaged with departments to gather feedback on major challenges with the current system. This feedback will be used to inform revisions to policies and procedures that modernize the City’s procurement system while maintaining appropriate contemporary standards for public-sector purchasing, including oversight, clear delegation of authority, and structured policy updates.

Discussion
The modernized Purchasing system will consist of three elements:

1. Procurement Ordinance
Under the proposed ordinance, and consistent with the City Charter, the City Manager would establish and oversee a centralized purchasing system for all City departments. The ordinance would update Municipal Code Chapter 2.24 - Purchasing System, to define the following:
• Powers and duties of the City Council, City Manager, Purchasing Agent, City Attorney, Emergency Services Manager, Director of Public Works, and Director of Human Resources as they relate to procurement, contract execution, and compliance.
• Procurement award and protest procedures to ensure fairness, transparency, and due process for vendors participating in City solicitations.

2. Procurement Policy
The Procurement Policy would serve as the City’s primary operational policy document for procurement and would be incorporated into the City’s Fiscal Policies, adopted annually by the City Council. Key components include:

4.H
Packet Pg. 185
4 of 6
• Procurement Award Thresholds: Establishes dollar thresholds for City Manager and City Council approval, with flexibility to adjust thresholds periodically to reflect inflation and market conditions. Rightsizing the thresholds is expected to reduce consent-agenda items and administrative burden by bringing outdated limits into alignment with current inflationary conditions.
• Competitive Bidding and Source Selection: Defines when formal bids, informal quotes, or sole-source justifications are required, and outlines procedures for Invitations for Bids (IFBs), Requests for Proposals (RFPs), Request for Qualifications (RFQs), cooperative purchasing, and emergency procurement.
• Ethics and Vendor Communications: Codifies expectations for impartiality, conflict-of-interest avoidance, and responsible stewardship of public funds, while establishing clear rules governing vendor communications during active solicitations.

This policy framework would allow the City to adjust procurement thresholds and practices without requiring Municipal Code amendments, improving responsiveness and administrative efficiency while maintaining transparency.

3. Administrative Instructions
The City currently has an AI governing procurement procedures; however, it has not been comprehensively updated since 2020. As a result, the document no longer reflects current organizational structure, modern procurement systems in place, or the City’s evolving operational needs. Staff and departmental users have noted that the existing instruction is difficult to navigate and the policies are implemented inconsistently across departments.

The proposed modernization effort provides an opportunity to replace the outdated instruction with a clear, streamlined set of rules that:
• Align with the new Procurement Ordinance and Procurement Policy • Clarify staff roles, responsibilities, and approval pathways • Provide consistent templates, checklists, and procedural guidance

4.H
Packet Pg. 186
5 of 6
• Support training and compliance monitoring
• Reflect current technology, including the City’s modernized purchasing system
By replacing the 2020 Administrative Instruction with updated regulations, the City will ensure that staff have practical, accessible, and current guidance for day-to-day procurement activities and will ensure consistent application of procurement rules across the organization.

Environmental Review
The ordinance on modernizing the City’s procurement process is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that CEQA does not apply, “where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. The ordinance is administrative in nature. Therefore, it can be seen with certainty that the agreement would not result in adverse physical impacts on the environment, and as such, is exempt from CEQA.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended actions. The proposed modernization is expected to improve administrative efficiency and reduce staff time spent on low-value procurement tasks.

Any future adjustments to procurement thresholds will be presented to Council as part of the annual budget and fiscal policy adoption process.

4.H
Packet Pg. 187
6 of 6
Prepared By: Oscar Santiago, Director
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26

4.H
Packet Pg. 188
1 City Council Meeting: February 24, 2026 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.24,
PURCHASING SYSTEM, TO MODERNIZE THE CITY’S PROCUREMENT

POLICIES, PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES
WHEREAS, Section 608 of the Charter of the City of Santa Monica (the “City Charter”) provides that the City of Santa Monica (the “City”) shall, by ordinance, adopt procedures and requirements for the purchase of supplies and equipment, for the provision of professional services, and for the award of bids for public works projects; and
WHEREAS, Section 608 of the City Charter further provides that such ordinance should preserve public confidence in the integrity and openness of the City’s contracting process, protect public funds, and ensure that the City obtains materials or service of appropriate quality; and
WHEREAS, Section 1507 of the City Charter provides that the City shall have a centralized purchasing system for all City departments and agencies, under the control of the City Manager, who shall recommend to the City Council to consider and adopt an ordinance and rules and regulations governing the contracting for purchasing, storing and distribution of all supplies, materials and equipment required by an office, department or agency of the City; and WHEREAS, Section 1507 of the City Charter further establishes certain nonexclusive powers and requirements of the Purchasing Agent; and

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 2 WHEREAS, Section 1508 of the City Charter provides that before making any purchase of, or contract for, supplies, materials or equipment, the Purchasing Agent shall give ample opportunity for competitive bidding, under such rules and regulations and with such exceptions as the City Council may prescribe by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on November 3, 1992, City voters approved Proposition S, amending Section 608 of the City Charter and increasing the dollar limit threshold for professional services contracts approved by the City Manager to $50,000, subject to future Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) adjustments; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of Sections 608, 1507 and 1508 of the City Charter, the City Council of the City of Santa Monica (the “City Council”) has, by ordinance, established a purchasing system as set forth in Chapter 2.24 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (“Chapter 2.24”); and WHEREAS, on November 26, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2447 (CCS) (“Ordinance 2447”) amending portions of Chapter 2.24 in order to: increase the threshold dollar limits for convenience purchase orders, formal bidding procedures, and professional services contracts approved by the City Manager; establish standard bidding procedures for professional services contracts; delegate certain authority to the purchasing agent; and establish a standard protest procedure for certain purchases; and
WHEREAS, on July 12, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2523 (CCS) to simplify the protest procedure established by Ordinance 2447 and to simplify and codify the protest procedure for public works contracts; and

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 3 WHEREAS, on April 23, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2608 (CCS) to increase the threshold limits for certain awards and align the Santa Monica Municipal Code with current and proposed procurement practices; and WHEREAS, the City’s current procurement system has limited flexibility that slows project delivery and leads to inconsistent practices across City departments; and
WHEREAS, the City’s legacy policies, complex workflows, and inconsistent processes can hinder timely contracting and increase internal administrative burden; and
WHEREAS, combined, these existing challenges hinder the City’s ability to act swiftly, collectively limits the organization’s capacity to adapt to the inflationary environment affecting the costs of goods and services, and impacts the City’s ability to effectively meet operational needs; and
WHEREAS, modernizing the City’s procurement system will allow the City to address fragmented processes and improve flexibility and the ability to act more swiftly while maintaining a centralized purchasing system; and WHEREAS, adoption of a Procurement Policy by the City Council on an annual basis, along with the City budget, will allow for the City to adjust procurement thresholds and practices without requiring amendments to the Municipal Code, thereby improving responsiveness and administrative efficiency while maintaining transparency; and

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 4 WHEREAS, adoption by City staff of an Administrative Instruction will provide guidance on day-to-day procurement activities that are consistent with the Municipal Code and the Council-adopted Procurement Policy; and WHEREAS, modernizing the procurement ordinance would create a clearer hierarchy of authority, improve efficiency, and empower the City to adapt procurement practices and thresholds as the organization and economic conditions evolve.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 2.24 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended and shall read in its entirety as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto.

SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or any appendix thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 5 SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty days after its adoption, and implementation shall occur upon adoption of a Procurement Policy by the City Council.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Heidi von Tongeln
Interim City Attorney

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 6 EXHIBIT A
Amendments to Chapter 2.24, Purchasing System
Chapter 2.24 PURCHASING SYSTEM

2.24.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to establish roles and authorities, consistent with Sections 608, 1507 and 1508 of the City Charter, for the purchase of all goods and services, contracts for the construction of public works projects, and the disposition of property.

2.24.020 Powers and Duties - Purchasing agent.
a. Appointment. The Director of Finance shall appoint the Purchasing Agent. b. Powers and Duties. The Purchasing Agent shall have the powers and duties set forth in Section 1507 of the City Charter. In addition, subject to the provisions of this Chapter, the Purchasing Agent shall have the power to:

1. Establish and enforce specifications with respect to:

A. Supplies, materials, and equipment required by the City; B. Supervise the inspection of all deliveries and determine conformance with specifications;

2. Have charge of such general storerooms and warehouses as are established by the City Council; and sell or transfer to or between offices, departments or agencies, surplus, obsolete, or unused supplies, materials or equipment;

3. Declare goods as surplus, obsolete or unused and authorize the transfer or disposal of such goods consistent with all applicable laws and regulations;

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 7 4. Cancel solicitations and re-solicit bids or proposals when cancellation is in the City's best interest for reasons including, but not limited to, when the City determines that:

A. The City does not require the goods, services, or construction of the public works project;
B. The City does not require a third party to provide the goods, services, or construct the public works project;
C. Proposed amendments to the solicitation document make a new solicitation desirable or necessary;
D. Prices or costs exceed the City's cost estimates;
E. No bids or proposals have been received in response to the solicitation; or
F. A procedural irregularity – including, but not limited to, failure to properly notice the solicitation or a material error in specifications – exists that could materially affect the outcome of the solicitation.

2.24.030 Procurement Policy.

The City Manager shall prepare a Procurement Policy to be adopted annually by the City Council with the City budget to implement the provisions of this Chapter. a. The Procurement Policy shall, at a minimum, establish:

1. Thresholds for City Manager and City Council approval;

2. Procedures for competitive bidding and selection; and

3. Standards to avoid conflicts of interest, ensure impartiality, and communications during active solicitations.

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 8 b. The Procurement Policy may also include, but not be limited to, exceptions to competitive bidding, policies addressing local boycotts, use of sustainable goods and price preferences for local businesses.
c. The Procurement Policy shall not conflict with, but may be in addition to, the provisions of this Chapter.

2.24.040 Administrative regulations.

The City Manager, or the Director of Finance as designated by the City Manager, is authorized to adopt written administrative regulations and instructions that are consistent with and that further provide guidance for implementation of the terms and requirements set forth in this Chapter and the Procurement Policy as adopted by the City Council.

2.24.050 City Council awards.

The City Council shall award:
a. Purchases of goods, professional and contractual services, and other contracts within the thresholds established in the Procurement Policy; b. Any other purchases and contracts that have not been otherwise authorized under this Chapter, unless the City Council has authorized a City officer or employee to negotiate a contract on behalf of the City without further Council approval.

2.24.060 City Manager authority.
a. The City Manager, or his or her designee pursuant to subsection (b) below, is authorized to make purchases for the following:

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 9 1. Purchases of goods, professional and contractual services, and any other contracts within the thresholds established in the Procurement Policy;

2. Emergency purchases in accordance with the Procurement Policy; and

3. Agreements to rent, lease or license real property valued within the thresholds established in the Procurement Policy or entered pursuant to express approval by the City Council.
b. The City Manager may delegate authority to make purchases and awards under this Section. All such delegations shall be in writing and dated and shall specify the limits of the authority delegated, including, without limitation, the type of purchase, dollar amount, and the terms of any contracts that will be executed under the delegation. All such delegations of authority shall be kept on file by the Purchasing Agent.

2.24.070 City Attorney authority.

The City Attorney is authorized to solicit, award, and enter into contracts for legal and legal-related services, including, but not limited to, services provided by outside legal counsel, investigators, mediators, arbitrators, hearing officers, expert witnesses, forensic accountants, litigation support providers, e-discovery vendors, consultants, and other professionals, as necessary to represent and protect the interests of the City.

This authority includes, without limitation, services provided in connection with matters including: (1) claims against the City; (2) pending or anticipated litigation; (3) administrative, regulatory, or enforcement proceedings; (4) alternative dispute

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 10 resolution; (5) internal investigations; (6) transactional or project-based legal matters, including, but not limited to, land development and real property disposition; (7) legislative or ballot measure-related matters; (8) bankruptcy or insolvency matters; and (9) other legal or related matters in which the City has an interest.

2.24.080 Purchasing Agent authority.

The Purchasing Agent is authorized to, within the thresholds established by the Procurement Policy:
a. Issue purchase orders and contracts;
b. Sell goods that have been declared surplus, obsolete or unused by bid, auction, negotiated sale, trade-in or exchange;
c. Donate goods that have been declared surplus, obsolete or unused; and d. Make emergency purchases in accordance with the Procurement Policy.

2.24.090 Department Head and Emergency Services Manager authority.

In accordance with the thresholds and procedures set forth in the Procurement Policy:
a. Each Department Head is authorized to make purchases of goods and services;
b. The Emergency Services Manager is authorized to make emergency purchases;
c. The Director of Public Works, the City Engineer or the Capital Improvement Manager, is authorized to issue task orders for as-needed services agreements; and

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 11 d. The Director of Human Resources is authorized to award and enter into contracts for personnel services and benefit agreements.

2.24.100 Award Procedures
Before making any purchase of, or contract for, supplies, materials or equipment, the Purchasing Agent shall give ample opportunity for competitive bidding, under such rules and regulations and with such exceptions as prescribed by the Procurement Policy adopted by City Council. In determining the best bidder for award of contractual services or other agreements and/or the best qualified person or firm for award of professional services or other agreements, the City shall consider all of the following criteria that are relevant to the solicitation:
a. Best Bidder.

1. Price;

2. The quality of the material or services offered;

3. The ability, capacity and skill of the bidder to perform or provide the materials or services;

4. The capacity of the bidder to perform the contract or provide the service promptly, within the time specified, and without delay or interference;

5. The sufficiency of the bidder's financial resources;

6. The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, training, experience and efficiency of the bidder;

7. The ability of the bidder to provide such future maintenance or service as may be needed;

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 12 8. Any other factor that will further the intent set forth in Section 608 of the City Charter.

The City shall have absolute discretion in determining the applicability and weight of the criteria listed above. The City is not required to select the bid with the lowest price.
b. Best qualified person or firm.

1. The training, credentials and experience of the person or firm;

2. The capacity and demonstrated competence, ability, and skill of the person or firm to perform the contract or provide the service promptly, within the time specified, and without delay;

3. The sufficiency of the person's or firm's financial and other resources;

4. The character, integrity, reputation and judgment of the person or firm;

5. The ability of the person or firm to provide such future service as may be needed; and

6. The price which the person or firm proposes to charge, including whether the price is fair, reasonable and competitive.

The City shall have absolute discretion in determining the applicability and weight of the criteria listed above. The City is not required to select the proposal with the lowest price.

2.24.110 Protests.

Any bidder or proposer may protest an award recommendation pursuant to the competitive bidding requirements of this Chapter.

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 13 a. Protests shall be filed in writing within seven consecutive calendar days following notice of the recommended award, or prequalification determination if prequalification is permitted under the Procurement Policy. b. Protests must include the name, address and telephone number of the protestor and/or the person representing the protesting party. The written protest must set forth, in detail, all grounds for the protest, including, without limitation, all facts, supporting documentation, legal authorities, and arguments in support of the grounds for the protest. All factual contentions must be supported by evidence.

Any matters not set forth in the written protest will be deemed waived. Any protest not conforming to the requirements of this Section may be rejected as invalid. c. Protests may be sustained or denied. When a protest is sustained, the awarding authority may, based on the evidence presented:

1. Reject all bids or proposals and order a re-solicitation; or

2. Recommend an alternate best bidder or best qualified person or firm by applying the criteria set forth above, as applicable. d. Once a protest has been filed, no solicitation shall be awarded until a final determination on the protest has been issued.
e. The City Manager, or designee, shall review and decide all protests relating to solicitations made pursuant to the informal and formal solicitation procedures set forth in the Procurement Policy. The City Manager, or designee, shall issue a written determination stating the reasons for sustaining or denying the protest within ten days of receiving the protest. This written determination shall constitute the City’s final decision on the protest.

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 14 2.24.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to establish procedures, consistent with Sections 608 and 1508 of the City Charter, for the purchase of all goods and services, contracts for the construction of public works projects, and the disposition of property.

2.24.020 Purchasing agent.
a. Appointment. The Director of Finance shall appoint the Purchasing Agent. b. Powers and Duties. The Purchasing Agent shall have the powers and duties set forth in Section 1507 of the City Charter. In addition, subject to the provisions of this Chapter, the Purchasing Agent shall have the power to:

1. Contract for all utility services;

2. Declare goods as surplus, obsolete or unused and authorize the transfer or disposal of such goods consistent with all applicable laws and regulations;

3. Cancel solicitations and re-solicit bids or proposals when cancellation is in the City's best interest for reasons including, but not limited to, when the City determines that:

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 15 D. Prices or costs exceed the City's cost estimates; E. No bids or proposals have been received in response to the solicitation; or
F. A procedural irregularity – including, but not limited to, failure to properly notice the solicitation or a material error in specifications – exists that could materially affect the outcome of the solicitation.

2.24.030 Centralized purchasing.

All acquisitions and purchases shall be made by and through the Purchasing Agent, except:
a. Purchases of goods and services made from petty cash funds pursuant to written control procedures approved as administrative regulations by the City Manager;
b. Purchases of goods and services by city procurement card ("P-Card") or other credit card, made in conformance with written control procedures approved as administrative regulations by the City Manager;
c. Emergency purchases made in conformance with Section 2.24.240; d. Contracts for legal services approved by the City Attorney; e. Purchases that are exempt from competitive solicitation procedures pursuant to this Chapter; and
f. Mutual aid agreements.

2.24.040 Council contract policies.

The City Council may adopt by resolution policies related to the purchase of goods and services, contracts for the construction of public works projects, or the

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 16 disposition of property. Such policies may include, but not be limited to, policies addressing local boycotts, use of sustainable goods and price preferences for local businesses. Such policies shall not conflict with, but may be in addition to, any provisions of this Chapter. Such policies shall be considered implemented in the solicitation and award of contracts made under this Chapter.

2.24.050 Administrative regulations.

The City Manager, or the Director of Finance as designated by the City Manager, is authorized to adopt written administrative regulations and instructions that are consistent with and that further the terms and requirements set forth within this Chapter.

2.24.060City Council awards.

The City Council shall award:
a. Purchases of goods of more than two hundred fifty thousand dollars; b. Contractual services agreements of more than two hundred fifty thousand dollars;
c. Professional services agreements of more than ninety-five thousand dollars;
d. Public works contracts of more than two hundred fifty thousand dollars; and e. Any other purchases and contracts that have not been otherwise authorized under this Chapter, unless the City Council has authorized a City officer or employee to negotiate a contract on behalf of the City without further Council approval.

2.24.070 City Manager authority.

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 17 a. The City Manager, or his or her designee pursuant to subsection (b) below, is authorized to make purchases and award the following:

1. Purchases of goods of two hundred fifty thousand dollars or less;

2. Contractual services agreements of two hundred fifty thousand dollars or less;

3.Professional services agreements of ninety-five thousand dollars or less;

4. Public works contracts of two hundred fifty thousand dollars or less;

5. Emergency purchases in accordance with Section 2.24.240; and

6. Agreements to rent, lease or license real property valued at two hundred fifty thousand dollars or less or entered pursuant to express approval by the City Council.
b. The City Manager may delegate authority to make purchases and awards under this Section. All such delegations shall be in writing and dated and shall specify the limits of the authority delegated, including, without limitation, the type of purchase, dollar amount, and the terms of any contracts that will be executed under the delegation. All such delegations of authority shall be kept on file by the Purchasing Agent.

2.24.080 City Attorney authority.

The City Attorney is authorized to award and enter into contracts for legal services, including, but not limited to, services provided by outside legal counsel, investigators, consultants or experts in conjunction with claims against the City, pending or anticipated litigation, or administrative or other legal proceedings.

2.24.090 Purchasing Agent authority.

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 18 The Purchasing Agent is authorized to:
a. Issue purchase orders awarded in accordance with this Chapter; b. Sell goods valued at less than twenty-five thousand dollars that have been declared surplus, obsolete or unused by bid, auction, negotiated sale, trade-in or exchange in accordance with Section 2.24.160;
c. Donate goods valued at less than twenty-five thousand dollars that have been declared surplus, obsolete or unused in accordance with Section 2.24.170; and
d. Make emergency purchases in accordance with Section 2.24.240.

2.24.100 Emergency Services Manager authority.

The Emergency Services Manager is authorized to make emergency purchases in accordance with Section 2.24.240.

2.24.110 Director of Public Works authority.

The Director of Public Works, the City Engineer or the Capital Improvement Manager, is authorized to issue task orders for as-needed services agreements in accordance with Section 2.24.220(g).

2.24.120 Purchase of goods.
a. Goods are physical items, including, but not limited to, materials, supplies and equipment.
b. Goods shall be solicited as follows, applying the criteria for best bidder as set forth in Section 2.24.180:

1. Purchases of twenty-five thousand dollars or less shall be exempt from competitive bidding requirements, unless the Purchasing Agent determines,

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 19 on a case by case basis, that substantial cost savings could be achieved without jeopardizing necessary operational efficiency, in which case the purchase shall be subject to the informal solicitation procedures set forth in Section 2.24.210.

2. Purchases of more than twenty-five thousand dollars but not more than two hundred fifty thousand dollars shall be subject to the informal solicitation procedures set forth in Section 2.24.210.

3. Purchases of more than two hundred fifty thousand dollars shall be subject to the formal solicitation procedures set forth in Section 2.24.220.

2.24.130 Contractual services agreements.
a. Contractual services are services for non-professional functions that are predominantly physical, manual or routine. Contractual services include, but are not limited to, custodial services, temporary agency services, and security services.
b. Contractual services agreements shall be solicited as follows, applying the criteria for best bidder as set forth in Section 2.24.180:

1. Contractual services agreements of twenty-five thousand dollars or less shall be exempt from competitive bidding requirements, unless the Purchasing Agent determines, on a case by case basis, that substantial cost savings could be achieved without jeopardizing necessary operational efficiency, in which case the agreement shall be subject to the informal solicitation procedures set forth in Section 2.24.210.

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 20 2. Contractual services agreements of more than twenty-five thousand dollars but not more than two hundred fifty thousand dollars shall be subject to the informal solicitation procedures set forth in Section 2.24.210.

3. Contractual services agreements of more than two hundred fifty thousand dollars shall be subject to the formal solicitation procedures set forth in Section 2.24.220.

2.24.140 Professional services agreements.
a. Professional services are services that require specialized expertise, training in a professional field, or other developed skills or training. Professional services include, but are not limited to, services performed by vendors with a State license or certification, including, but not limited to, accountants, doctors, lawyers, engineers, architects and land surveyors.
b. Professional services agreements shall be solicited as follows, applying the criteria for best qualified person or firm as set forth in Section 2.24.190:

1. Professional services agreements of twenty-five thousand dollars or less shall be exempt from competitive bidding requirements, unless the Purchasing Agent determines, on a case by case basis, that substantial cost savings could be achieved without jeopardizing necessary operational efficiency, in which case the agreement shall be subject to the informal solicitation procedures set forth in Section 2.24.210.

2. Professional services agreements of more than twenty-five thousand dollars but not more than ninety-five thousand dollars shall be subject to the informal solicitation procedures set forth in Section 2.24.210.

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 21 3. Professional services agreements of more than ninety-five thousand dollars shall be subject to the formal solicitation procedures set forth in Section

2.24.220.

2.24.150 Public works contracts.
a. A public works contract is a contract paid for in whole or in part with public funds for the construction, alteration, repair, improvement, reconstruction or demolition of any public building, facility, street, sidewalk, utility, park or open space improvement, or other public improvement.
b. Public works contracts shall be solicited as follows, applying the criteria for best bidder as set forth in Section 2.24.180:

1. Public works contracts of twenty-five thousand dollars or less shall be exempt from competitive bidding requirements, unless the Purchasing Agent determines, on a case by case basis, that substantial cost savings could be achieved through the competitive bidding process without jeopardizing necessary operational efficiency, in which case the project shall be subject to the informal solicitation procedures set forth in Section 2.24.210.

2. Public works contracts of more than twenty-five thousand dollars but not more than two hundred fifty thousand dollars shall be subject to the informal solicitation procedures set forth in Section 2.24.210.

3. Public works contracts of more than two hundred fifty thousand dollars shall be subject to the formal solicitation procedures set forth in Section

2.24.220.

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 22 4. Master services agreements for public works projects may be solicited and implemented in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section

2.24.220(g).

2.24.160 Sale of goods.

Goods that have been declared surplus, obsolete or unused by the Purchasing Agent shall be sold to the best bidder, applying the criteria in Section 2.24.180, by bid, auction, negotiated sale, trade-in or exchange as follows:
a. The sale of goods valued at twenty-five thousand dollars or less shall be sold according to procedures established by the Purchasing Agent. b. The sale of goods valued at two hundred fifty thousand dollars or less shall be subject to the informal solicitation procedures set forth in Section 2.24.210. c. The sale of goods valued at more than two hundred fifty thousand dollars shall be subject to the formal solicitation procedures set forth in Section 2.24.220.

2.24.170 Donation of goods.

Goods that have been declared surplus, obsolete or unused by the Purchasing Agent may be donated as follows:
a. Goods valued at twenty-five thousand dollars or less may be donated in accordance with procedures established by the Purchasing Agent. b. Goods valued at more than twenty-five thousand dollars may be donated to the best bidder applying the criteria set forth in Section 2.24.180 in accordance with the formal solicitation procedures set forth in Section 2.24.220.

2.24.180 Best bidder.

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 23 In determining the best bidder, the City shall consider all of the following criteria that are relevant to the solicitation:
a. Price;
b. The quality of the material or services offered;
c. The ability, capacity and skill of the bidder to perform or provide the materials or services;
d. The capacity of the bidder to perform the contract or provide the service promptly, within the time specified, and without delay or interference; e. The sufficiency of the bidder's financial resources; f. The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, training, experience and efficiency of the bidder;
g. The ability of the bidder to provide such future maintenance or service as may be needed;
h. Any other factor that will further the intent set forth in Section 608 of the City Charter.

The City shall have absolute discretion in determining the applicability and weight of the criteria listed above. The City is not required to select the bid with the lowest price.

2.24.190 Best qualified person or firm.

In determining the best qualified person or firm for award of a professional services agreement, the City shall consider all of the following criteria that are relevant to the solicitation:
a. The training, credentials and experience of the person or firm;

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 24 b. The demonstrated competence, ability, capacity and skill of the person or firm to perform the contract or provide the service promptly, within the time specified, and without delay;
c. The capacity of the person or firm to perform the contract or provide the service promptly, within the time specified, and without delay; d. The sufficiency of the person's or firm's financial and other resources; and e. The character, integrity, reputation and judgment of the person or firm; f. The ability of the person or firm to provide such future service as may be needed; and
g. The price which the person or firm proposes to charge, including whether the price is fair, reasonable and competitive.

The City shall have absolute discretion in determining the applicability and weight of the criteria listed above. The City is not required to select the proposal with the lowest price.

2.24.200 Price preference for local businesses.

In determining the best bidder for solicitations of goods and contractual services subject to the informal and formal procedures set forth in this Chapter, the Purchasing Agent shall provide a price preference for local businesses as follows:
a. The Purchasing Agent shall provide a two percent price preference to all City businesses submitting bids or proposals upon which will be levied a State of California sales tax. The Purchasing Agent shall administer the bidding preference so that bid amounts received from City businesses are reduced by two percent to determine the rank order of the bids in the selection process. If, after the two

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 25 percent preference is applied, a City business has submitted a bid which is equal to or lower than all other proposals, the City Council shall award the contract to the City business so long as it is otherwise the best bidder or best qualified person or firm.
b. For purposes of this provision, a City business shall have its primary physical place of business within the City and be licensed by the City of Santa Monica to conduct business in the City.

2.24.210 Informal procedures.

Informal solicitations shall be subject to the following procedures:
a. The Purchasing Agent shall issue a notice inviting bids or request for proposals and solicit not less than three bids or proposals by direct mail or electronic mail request, or by telephone. The Purchasing Agent may require additional notice as the Purchasing Agent deems appropriate, including, for example, requiring that the solicitation be posted on the City's online vendor portal website.
b. The Purchasing Agent shall compile and tabulate all bids or proposals timely received and refer them to the appropriate City Department for evaluation.

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 26 c. The Purchasing Agent shall provide notice of the recommended award to all bidders or proposers through the City's online vendor portal website or by other means as determined by the Purchasing Agent.
d. The City Manager shall award the solicitation after the time to file a protest has expired or after a final determination on a protest has been made in accordance with Section 2.24.260.
e. The City Manager may reject any and all bids or proposals received whenever, in the opinion of the City Manager:

1. The bid(s) or proposal(s) received do not comply with the specifications of the notice inviting bids or request for proposals;

2. The proposed project or purchase should be abandoned or delayed;

3. The materials or services may be purchased more reasonably on the open market or the work done less expensively by City personnel;

4. The bids or proposals are higher than anticipated and a new solicitation would result in savings to the City; or

5. The best interests of the City would be served by a rejection of any or all bids or proposals.

2.24.220 Formal procedures.

Formal solicitations shall be subject to the following procedures:
a. The Purchasing Agent shall issue a formal notice inviting bids or request for proposals and shall solicit bids and proposals by:

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 27 1. Advertising in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Santa Monica on at least two occasions, the first of which shall be at least ten days before the time for opening received bids; and

2. Posting on the City's online vendor portal website.

The Purchasing Agent may require additional notice as the Purchasing Agent determines to be in the best interest of the City.
b. At the time specified in the notice inviting bids or request for proposals, all bids or proposals timely received shall be opened and declared publicly, either in person or through the City's online vendor portal website. c. The Purchasing Agent shall compile and tabulate all bids or proposals timely received and refer them to the appropriate City Department for evaluation.

For public works contracts or purchases of goods or contractual services, the City Department shall make a recommendation of best bidder by applying the criteria set forth in Section 2.24.180. For purchases of professional services, the City Department shall make a recommendation of best qualified person or firm by applying the criteria set forth in Section 2.24.190.
d. The Purchasing Agent shall provide notice of the recommended award to all bidders or proposers through the City's online vendor portal website or by other means as determined by the Purchasing Agent.
e. The City Manager shall present the recommendation to City Council for award after the time to file a protest has expired or after a final determination on a protest has been made in accordance with Section 2.24.260.

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 28 f. The City Council may reject any and all bids or proposals received whenever, in the opinion of the City Council:

1. The bid(s) or proposal(s) received do not comply with the specifications of the notice inviting bids or request for proposals;

2. The proposed project or purchase should be abandoned or delayed;

3. The materials or services may be purchased more reasonably on the open market or the work done less expensively by City personnel;

4. The bids or proposals are higher than anticipated and a new solicitation would result in savings to the City; or

5. The best interests of the City would be served by a rejection of any or all bids or proposals.
g. As-Needed Services Agreements for Public Works Projects.

Notwithstanding any other provision in this Chapter, the City may, in its discretion and when deemed to be in the best interest of the City, obtain construction, maintenance, or repair services pursuant to as-needed services agreements in accordance with the following terms and procedures:

1. The City shall solicit, review and evaluate the qualifications of prospective contractors for as-needed services agreements in accordance with rules and regulations established by the Director of Public Works;

2. The Director of Public Works shall pre-qualify contractors for asneeded service agreements;

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 29 3. The City Council may award as-needed services agreements to prequalified contractors, in amounts not to exceed five million dollars and with terms of no more than five years;

4. When the need arises for the performance of specific tasks within the scope of as-needed service agreements, the Director of Public Works shall seek bids from at least three prequalified contractors and, using the evaluation criteria set forth under Section 2.24.180, issue a task order to the best bidder in an amount not to exceed one million dollars for a specifically defined scope of work;

5. The thresholds for as-needed services agreements and task orders listed in subsections (3) and (4) shall be subject to increase annually based on changes to the construction cost index. "Construction cost index" means the construction cost index published by the California Department of General Services. When calculating the increases, City shall use the current construction cost index, as well as a construction cost base index. The construction cost base index shall be the construction cost index in effect for July 2018. The increased thresholds shall be approved by Council at award of the as-needed services agreement;

6. If the Director of Public Works seeks but is unable to obtain three bids, the Director may issue a task order to the best bidder of the bids submitted;

7. The Director of Public Works may reject any and all bids received in accordance with the standards set forth in subsection (f), above;

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 30 8. Prequalified contractors performing task orders under as-needed services agreements shall file payment and performance bonds in conjunction with each task order awarded as required by the Director or applicable law; and

9. The Director of Public Works shall submit a report to the City Council on an annual basis containing information about the implementation of this subsection, including a listing of task orders issued pursuant to this subsection.

2.24.230 Sale of real property.
a. Declaration of Intent to Sell Real Property. The City Council may, by resolution, declare its intent to sell City-owned real property. Such a resolution shall authorize the City Manager to sell the property. The resolution shall contain the following:

1. The reason for sale of the property;

2. A description of the property to be sold;

3. A finding that the property is no longer needed for the purpose acquired;

4. A finding that the property or title thereto is not needed for any other public purpose; and

5. Designation of the competitive sales process to be used for sale of the property.
b. Notice of Public Sale. Sale shall only be made after advertising of notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Santa Monica on at least two occasions, the first of which shall be at least ten days before the time at which bids or proposals are due.

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 31 c. Requirements for Sale by Bids or Auction. On any occasion on which the City Council directs the sale of City-owned real property by bids or auction, after providing notice as required by subsection (b), bids shall be accepted until the time specified in the notice of public sale. The City Manager or designee shall then tabulate all bids received and present them to the City Council. The City Council shall award the sale to the highest and best bidder. The City Council may reject any and all bids presented and may re-advertise in its discretion. d. Requirements for Sale by Competitive Proposals or Negotiation. On any occasion on which the City Council directs the sale of City-owned property by a call for competitive proposals and negotiation, after providing notice as required by subsection (b), proposals shall be accepted until the time specified in the notice of public sale. The City Manager or designee shall then review all proposals and may negotiate with any party that submits a proposal in order to increase the final sales price, to reduce proposal contingencies, and to ensure sufficient financial resources to complete the sale. The City Council shall award the sale to the best proposer. The City Council may reject any and all proposals and may re-advertise in its discretion.
e. Requirement for Sale by Competitive Proposals and Negotiation. On any occasion on which City Council directs the sale of City-owned property through the use of a duly licensed real estate broker, the broker shall be selected in accordance with the City's policies for hiring consultants and applicable state and local laws pertaining to conflicts of interest, and the broker must comply with notice of public sale requirements. The broker shall advertise the property for sale, accept offers

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 32 for the property, and negotiate with potential buyers in order to increase the final sales price, to reduce proposal contingencies, and to ensure sufficient financial resources to complete the sale. The City Council shall award the sale to the best proposer by at least five affirmative votes. The City Council may reject any and all offers and re-advertise in its discretion.
f. Approval of Final Sale. City-owned property shall be sold in accordance with this Section. No real property shall be sold except by resolution of the City Council. g. Sale without Publication. Sales of real property may be made without advertising if the City Council, by a resolution adopted by at least five affirmative votes, determines that to advertise would cause unnecessary expense and delay or would not be in the best interest of the City. If Council so determines, it may authorize property to be sold by direct negotiation, exchange, sale to an adjacent property owner, conveyance to government bodies, public utilities or nonprofit organizations, or other appropriate method, as authorized in the resolution of intent to sell City-owned property.
h. Approval of Final Sale. City-owned property shall be sold in accordance with this Section. No real property shall be sold except by resolution passed by an affirmative vote of five members of the City Council.

2.24.240 Procedures for Emergency Needs.
a. In the event of an emergency, the City Manager, the Emergency Services Manager, the Purchasing Agent or their one of their designees pursuant to subsection (b) below is authorized to:

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 33 1. Shorten or waive all required notice periods and competitive solicitation procedures set forth in this Chapter;

2. Secure in the open market at the best reasonable price, contracts for public works projects, goods and services;

3. Negotiate or execute such contracts, agreements, applications or other documents with such other federal, state or local agencies or other groups and organizations as are necessary to provide or obtain emergency aid, assistance or services to the City of Santa Monica; and

4. Contract for the immediate expenditure of public funds to safeguard life, health or property.
b. The City Manager, the Emergency Services Manager, or the Purchasing Agent may delegate authority to make purchases and awards under this Section.

All such delegations shall be in writing and dated and shall specify the limits of the authority delegated, including, without limitation, the type of purchase, dollar amount, and the terms of any contracts that will be executed under the delegation.

All such delegations of authority shall be kept on file by the Purchasing Agent. c. Within thirty days after any purchase or contract is made pursuant to this Section, the City Manager shall submit in writing to the City Council a full explanation of the emergency circumstances under which the purchase or contract was made. This writing shall be open to public inspection and, to the extent possible, presented as part of a regular meeting of the City Council. d. For purposes of this section, an emergency shall include:

1. A declared federal or state emergency;

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 34 2. A local emergency as declared by the City Council, the City Manager, or the Emergency Services Manager; or

3. An urgent, unforeseen event that threatens life, property, or the general public health, safety and welfare.

2.24.260 Protests.

Any bidder or proposer may protest an award recommendation pursuant to the competitive bidding requirements of this Chapter.
a. Protests shall be filed in writing within seven consecutive calendar days following notice of the recommended award, or prequalification for the case of Master Services Agreements subject to Section 2.24.220(g). b. Protests must include the name, address and telephone number of the protestor and/or the person representing the protesting party. The written protest must set forth, in detail, all grounds for the protest, including, without limitation, all facts, supporting documentation, legal authorities, and arguments in support of the grounds for the protest. All factual contentions must be supported by evidence.

1. Reject all bids or proposals and order a re-solicitation; or

2. Recommend an alternate best bidder or best qualified person or firm by applying the criteria set forth in Section 2.24.180 or Section 2.24.190, as applicable.

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To 35 d. Once a protest has been filed, no solicitation shall be awarded until a final determination on the protest has been issued.
e. The City Manager, or designee, shall review and decide all protests relating to solicitations made pursuant to the informal solicitation procedures set forth in Section 2.24.210 and formal solicitation procedures set forth in Section 2.24.220.

The City Manager, or designee, shall issue a written determination stating the reasons for sustaining or denying the protest within ten days of receiving the protest. This written determination shall constitute the City's final decision on the protest.
f. For protests relating to solicitations made pursuant to the formal solicitation procedures set forth in Section 2.24.220, the City Manager shall submit to the City Council a written report on the protest, including the final decision on the protest.

4.H.a
Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: ORD--Updates to Chapter 2.24 Purchasing System 02.24.26 [Revision 1] (7556 : Introduce For First Reading An Ordinance To February 6, 2026
(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 6, 2026
A special meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Torosis at 8:47 a.m., on Friday, February 6, 2026, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA.

Roll Call: Present: Mayor Caroline Torosis
Mayor Pro Tem Jesse Zwick
Councilmember Lana Negrete
Councilmember Dan Hall
Councilmember Ellis Raskin
Councilmember Barry Snell
Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya
Also Present: City Manager Oliver Chi
Interim City Attorney Heidi von Tongeln
Interim City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
CONVENE/PLEDGE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 8:46 a.m., with all members present. Councilmember Negrete led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.

STATEMENT OF

ACCOUNTABILITY
(LAND

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT)
The City of Santa Monica Statement of Accountability (Land Acknowledgement) was read into the record by Mayor Pro Tem Zwick.

LEVINE ACT

DISCLOSURE
No Councilmembers made disclosures regarding the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308).

PUBLIC INPUT FOR
CLOSED SESSION ONLY:

There were no members of the public present to comment on Closed Session items.

CLOSED SESSIONS On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 8:50 a.m., to consider Closed Sessions and returned at 3:49 p.m., to report the following:

5.A. Public employee appointment - Gov. Code § 54957(b): consider public employee appointment; title: City Attorney; Gov. Code § 54957.6: conference with labor negotiator; City negotiator: Mayor/City Manager; unrepresented employee: City Attorney

4.I
Packet Pg. 224 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 6, 2026 8:45 AM (CONSENT CALENDAR) February 6, 2026
The Mayor advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 3:49 p.m.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Denise Anderson-Warren Caroline Torosis
Interim City Clerk Mayor

4.I
Packet Pg. 225 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 6, 2026 8:45 AM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 1 February 10, 2026
(NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 10, 2026
A regular meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Torosis at 5:35 p.m., on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA.

Roll Call: Present: Mayor Caroline Torosis
Mayor Pro Tem Jesse Zwick (arrived at 5:39 p.m.)
Councilmember Lana Negrete
Councilmember Dan Hall
Councilmember Ellis Raskin
Councilmember Barry Snell
Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya
Also Present: City Manager Oliver Chi
Interim City Attorney Heidi von Tongeln
Interim City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
CONVENE/PLEDGE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 5:35p.m., with all members present except Mayor Pro Tem Zwick. Councilmember Snell led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.

STATEMENT OF

ACCOUNTABILITY
(LAND

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT)
The City of Santa Monica Statement of Accountability (Land Acknowledgement) was read into the record by Councilmember Zernitskaya.

LEVINE ACT

DISCLOSURE
No Councilmembers made disclosures regarding the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308).

AGENDA

MANAGEMENT
Motion by Councilmember Raskin, seconded by Councilmember Zernitskaya, to move all Closed Session items to the end of the meeting, and hear the remainder of the agenda before adjourning to closed session.

The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote, with Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, absent.

PUBLIC INPUT FOR

GENERAL PUBLIC
COMMENT:

Mayor Pro Tem Zwick
arrived at 5:39 p.m.

Members of the public Tanya Cortes, Elana Policarpo, Bella Perez, Katherine Martinez, Mark Mankaryous, Marco Said, Alex Lightman, Laurence Coleman, Johnathan Foster, Alan Glick, Morgan Hunter Gross, Denise Barton, Jerry Rubin, Sean Ahaus, Chad Kroeger, JT Parr, Justin Nelson, Zach Glasgow, Ari Pozez, Daniel Gaffey, Mike Montgonery, and

4.J
Packet Pg. 226 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 10, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 February 10, 2026
Alan Mont commented on various local issues.

PUBLIC INPUT FOR

CONSENT CALENDAR

AND CLOSED SESSION
ONLY:

Members of the public Matthew Millen Gina Debaca, Maria Loya, Zina Josephs, and Oscar de la Torre commented on Closed Session items.

Members of the public Harvey Eder, Morgan Hunter Gross, Denise Barton, and Johnathan Foster commented on Consent Calendar items.

CONSENT CALENDAR: All items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion.

The Interim City Clerk read into the record minor changes to Items 4.D., and

4.F.

At the request of Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, Item 4.B. was pulled from the Consent Calendar to recuse himself due to a possible conflict with his employment as Southern California Director of the Housing Action Coalition, which advocates for housing production, and the use of SB9, which is involved in this item.

Motion by Councilmember Raskin, seconded by Councilmember Zernitskaya, to approve the Consent Calendar except for Item 4.B., including the minor changes to 4.D. and 4.F., reading resolutions by title only and waiving further reading thereof. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Hall, Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, Mayor Torosis
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

NURSE PRACTITIONER

AGREEMENTS

4.A. Award Nurse Practitioner Agreements for Advanced Provider Unit Program, was approved.

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines;

2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No. 11800 (CCS) with Erin Tomlinson for the Advanced Provider Unit for the Fire Department. This recommended award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.24.250(i) and 2.24.240(a) and for an amount not to exceed $598,643, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval; and

4.J
Packet Pg. 227 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 10, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 3 February 10, 2026

3. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute Agreement No. 11801 (CCS) with Alex Perez Sandi as a Nurse Practitioner for the Advanced Provider Unit for the Fire Department. This recommended award is made as an exception to the competitive bidding process pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.24.250(i) and

2.24.240(a) and for an amount not to exceed $598,643, with future year funding contingent on Council budget approval.

CITY COUNCIL

MEETING SCHEDULE

4.C. Adoption of Resolution No. 11736 (CCS) entitled, “A

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA AMENDING THE 2026 COUNCIL MEETING
CALENDAR”, was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the following:

1. Adopt attached Resolution No. 11736 (CCS) amending the established 2026 Council regular meeting calendar to reschedule the March 17, 2026 Regular Council Meeting to March 10, 2026; and

2. Adopt a finding that the resolution is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

MINUTES 4.D. Minutes of City Council - Regular Meeting - Oct 22, 2024 5:30 PM, were approved, as amended.

MINUTES 4.E. Minutes of City Council - Regular and Special Meeting - Jan 13, 2026 5:30 PM, were approved.

MINUTES 4.F. Minutes of City Council - Regular Meeting - Jan 27, 2026 5:30 PM, were approved, as amended.

MINUTES 4.G. Minutes of City Council - Special Meeting - Jan 27, 2026 5:35 PM, were approved.

MINUTES 4.H. Minutes of City Council - Special Meeting - Jan 28, 2026 5:30 PM, were approved.

REGIONAL FIRES

EMERGENCY

PROCLAMATION

4.I. Adoption of Resolution No. 11737 (CCS) entitled, “AN

EMERGENCY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2.16 OF THE

SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE RATIFYING THE

PROCLAMATION OF EXISTENCE OF LOCAL EMERGENCY
AND SUPPLEMENTAL PROCLAMATIONS THERETO,” was
adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

4.J
Packet Pg. 228 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 10, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 4 February 10, 2026

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption). 15268
(Ministerial Projects), and 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

2. Adopt proposed Resolution No. 11737 (CCS) ratifying the Executive Order issued by the Director of Emergency Services declaring the existence of a local emergency in the City of Santa Monica and the Supplements to that Order.

HOMELESSNESS

EMERGENCY

PROCLAMATION

4.J. Adoption of Resolution No. 11738 (CCS) entitled, “AN

EMERGENCY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA RATIFYING THE 2025

PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA MONICA DECLARING A LOCAL EMERGENCY ON
HOMELESSNESS,” was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

2. Adopt proposed Resolution No. 11738 (CCS) ratifying the 2025 Proclamation of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Declaring a Local Emergency on Homelessness.

ANNENBERG SECURITY

SERVICES

4.K. Approval of Emergency Extension of Security Services Contract at Annenberg Community Beach House, was approved.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

2. Ratify the Procurement Manager’s approval of the emergency extension of Agreement No. 11120 (CCS) with AG Coast Inc. dba California Panther Security to continue 24/7 unarmed security guard service at the Annenberg Community Beach House for the
Recreation and Arts Department. This emergency purchase was made as an exception to the competitive bidding process per SMMC

2.24.250(i), and is for a total amount not to exceed $215,000 through September 30, 2026.

RIGHT TO RECALL 4.L. Second Reading and Adoption or Ordinance No. 2847 (CCS) entitled, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA TO AMEND CHAPTER 4.66 TO PROVIDE

FOR RECALL OF WORKERS AT HOTELS ON CITY-OWNED

4.J
Packet Pg. 229 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 10, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 5 February 10, 2026

PROPERTY AND AT HOSPITALITY BUSINESSES ON THE SANTA
MONICA PIER AND ADDING CHAPTER 4.69 TO PROVIDE FOR

RETENTION OF WORKERS AT HOSPITALITY BUSINESSES ON
THE SANTA MONICA PIER,” was adopted.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt attached Ordinance No. 2847 (CCS); or

2. Reintroduce the attached Ordinance on first reading with changes directed by the City Council.
3222 23RD STREET

TRACT MAP
Mayor Pro Tem Zwick was
excused at 6:44 p.m.

Mayor Pro Tem Zwick
returned at 6:46 p.m.

4.B. Adoption of a Resolution Accepting and Approving Final Parcel Map No. 84800 to Subdivide a Property at 3222 23rd Street, was presented.

Staff recommends that the Council take following actions:

1. Adopt a finding of Statutory Exemption (Approval of Final Subdivision Map) pursuant to Section 15268(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines); and

2. Adopt attached Resolution No. 11735 (CCS) approving Final Parcel Map No. 84800 to Subdivide a Property at 3222 23rd Street.

Motion by Councilmember Raskin, seconded by Mayor Torosis, to adopt Resolution No. 11735 (CCS), entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ACCEPTING AND
APPROVING THE FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP FOR PARCEL NO.
84800 TO SUBDIVIDE A PROPERTY AT 3222 23rd STREET.” The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Negrete, Hall, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya, Mayor Torosis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Zwick

CITY MANAGER
REPORT
The City Manager Report was presented.

COUNCIL TRAVEL
MAYOR’S HIGHLIGHT
Councilmember Zernitskaya reported she traveled to Sacramento for the Civic Well Civic Bridge Policy meeting, where they discussed a lot of different strategies around energy and housing and sustainability. Mayor Torosis reported that she traveled to Boston for the U.S. Conference of Mayors for a fellowship that she is participating in with eight other Mayors around the country. They are getting support from the Harvard Graduate School of Design and addressing the built-in environment in systems of injustice that have created our unjust environment, and how we make smart decisions going forward basis to correct those as part of our restorative

4.J
Packet Pg. 230 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 10, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 6 February 10, 2026
justice programs will be included. She received a scholarship, so this was of no cost to the City.

PUBLIC INPUT ON

REMAINING AGENDA
ITEMS:

Member of the public Jerry Rubin commented on item 16.C.

Member of the public Pam O’Connor commented on item 16.B.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

CITY’S OUTDOOR

DINING PROGRAM

12.A. Introduction and First Reading of an Interim Zoning Ordinance to Extend Interim Zoning Regulations Related to Outdoor Dining and Seating on Sidewalks, to Promote Economic Recovery by Simplifying the City’s Outdoor Dining Program, was presented.

Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Adopt a finding of no possibility of significant environmental effects pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) and findings of categorical exemptions pursuant to Sections 15301 and 15305 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and

2. Introduce for First Reading an Interim Zoning Ordinance (IZO) Extending IZO Number 2837 Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.31.200, Outdoor Dining and Seating on Sidewalks, to Promote Economic Recovery by Simplifying the City’s Outdoor Dining Program.

There were no members of the public present to speak on the recommended action.

Motion by Councilmember Negrete, seconded by Councilmember Hall, to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Hall, Negrete, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, Mayor Torosis
NOES: None
ABSENT: None

COUNCILMEMBER
DISCUSSION ITEMS:

In accordance with Council Rule 6(y), all Councilmember Discussion items were considered and approved in one motion unless removed by a Councilmember for discussion.

Items 16.B. and 16.C. were removed and considered separately in accordance with Council Rule 6(y)

HOUSING AUTHORITY
BOARD

16.A. Recommendation to appoint new Housing Authority Board member due to Belinda L. Phillips ineligibility from the City’s voucher program, and authorize the City Clerk to publish the vacancy, was

4.J
Packet Pg. 231 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 10, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 7 February 10, 2026
presented.

Motion by Councilmember Snell, seconded by Councilmember Negrete, to accept the resignation with regret.

The motion was approved by a unanimous voice vote, with all members present.

PAUSE TO MILLS ACT

AND STRUCTURE OF

MERIT REVISION

CONSIDERATIONS

16.B. Request of Councilmember Raskin, Mayor Torosis, and Councilmember Hall to direct that the City Manager Deprioritize and Pause Analysis on Mills Act and Structure of Merit Revision Considerations, and to align Landmarks work plans with the implementation of the Landmarks Commission’s recommendations in “A Place for Everyone in Santa Monica’s History.”, was presented.

Mayor Pro Tem Zwick expressed out of an abundance of caution that he would like to focus on the Mills Act portion and not address anything dealing with housing production.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, seconded by Councilmember Raskin, to separate this item and only address the Mills Act portion, and not address the housing portion. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote, with all members present.

Councilmember Hall, seconded by Councilmember Raskin, to approve the recommended action regarding the Mills Act portion.

Substitute motion by Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, seconded by Councilmember Zernitskaya, that on the Mills Act portion hear the report that has already been written in order to make an informed decision, and allow all applications in this cycle to continue. The substitute motion failed by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember Zernitskaya, Mayor Pro Tem Zwick
NOES: Councilmembers Negrete, Hall, Raskin, Snell, Mayor Torosis ABSENT: None
The main motion to direct the City Manager Deprioritize and Pause Analysis on Mills Act, including aligning the Landmarks work plans with the implementation of the Landmarks Commission’s recommendation “A Place for Everyone in Santa Monica’s History, was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Zernitskaya, Snell, Raskin, Hall, Negrete, Mayor Torosis
NOES: Mayor Pro Tem Zwick

4.J
Packet Pg. 232 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 10, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 8 February 10, 2026
Mayor Pro Tem Zwick was
excused at 7:16 p.m.

ABSENT: None
Motion by Councilmember Raskin, seconded by Councilmember Hall, to approve the recommendation for Structure of Merit Revision Considerations.

The motion was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Negrete, Hall, Raskin, Snell, Zernitskaya, Mayor Torosis
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Zwick

VISION ZERO
Mayor Pro Tem Zwick
returned at 7:17 p.m.

16.C. Request of Mayor Torosis, Mayor Pro Tempore Zwick, and Councilmember Hall, in light of the city’s failure to reduce traffic injuries and fatalities in the ten years following its “Vision Zero” commitment in 2016, that the City Council direct the City Manager to work with staff on a reimagined plan that prioritizes human life over vehicle throughput in design and engineering decisions regarding the city right-of-way, was presented.

Motion by Councilmember Negrete, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, to approve the recommendation. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote, with all members present.

CLOSED SESSIONS Councilmember Zernitskaya recused herself from Item 5.L. due to a potential conflict of interest under Govt. Code 87100
Mayor Pro Tem Zwick recused himself from Items 5.K. and 5.L. due to a potential conflict of interest under Govt. Code 87100
Councilmember Hall recused himself from Items 5.I and 5.J. due to a potential conflict of interest under Govt. Code 87100
Mayor Torosis recused herself from Item 5.L. due to a potential conflict of interest under Govt. Code 87100
On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 7:30 p.m., to consider Closed Sessions and returned at 10:52 p.m., with Councilmember Zernitskaya and Mayor Pro Tem Zwick absent, to report the following:

5.A. Uller - Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov.

Code § 54956.9(d)(1): John U.N.B. Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV12746; John Doe 1, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV15009; Hector Orozco v. John Doe: Does 1-2; LASC # 23SMCV03120; John JPC Doe v. Doe City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV22020; John AD Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV26548; John CW Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV29623; John Doe (A.G.) v. Santa Monica Police

4.J
Packet Pg. 233 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 10, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 9 February 10, 2026
Activities League, et al; LASC # 23SMCV06066; John GA DOE, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV06484; John U.L.W. Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV06768; Joseph Garcia v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV01368; John Doe 15, et al. v.

City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV07647; John Doe 18, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV0239; John RR Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV09398; John Doe 33, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV15580; John Doe 48 v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV15420; John Doe 49 v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV19296; John DD Doe v. City, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV04421; Jane EB Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV24146; John Doe (V.D.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05049; John Doe (D.F.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05050; John Doe (D.G.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05051; Jane Doe 13, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV27233; John AM Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV28433; John Doe v. City, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05527; John Doe 53 v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV31763; John Doe (Y.M.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV06355; Jane Doe 16, et al. v. a Public Entity, et al.; LASC # 25STCV02235; John Doe 62, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV04414; John Doe 23 v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV05850; John Doe (E.B.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 25STCV06354; Jane PB Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV06880; John Doe 67 v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV10142; John Doe 68 v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV12089; John Doe 69, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV14031; John OR Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV16251; John RD Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV24158
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

5.B. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1): City v. ICSOP, et al.; OCSC # 30-2022-01261243 The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

5.C. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1): Anthony J. Stone v. City, et al.; LASC # 25SMCV00044 The City Attorney advised of a settlement agreement involving a personal injury case involving a claim a Big Blue bus passenger fell while boarding a bus. The city denies liability and does not admit fault, but agrees to settle for an amount of $500,000, and in exchange, Stone agrees to release all claims against the city. The settlement was approved by a vote of 7-0.

4.J
Packet Pg. 234 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 10, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 10 February 10, 2026
Councilmember Hall was
excused at 8:52 p.m.

5.D. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1): Furley Williams v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV27401 The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

5.E. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1): Lori Gentles v. City; LASC # 24STCV18968 The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

5.F. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1): City, et al. v. Waymo LLC, et al.; LASC # 25SMCV06581 The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

5.G. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1): Santa Monica EV Holdings, LLC et al., v. City; LASC # 25SMCV06681
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

5.H. Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1): Waymo LLC v. City; LASC # 25SMCV06541
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

5.I. Conference with real estate negotiator - Gov. Code § 54956.8; property: 2019 and 1905 Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica, California; City negotiator: Oliver Chi, City Manager; owner of record: Dennis Wylder; persons to be negotiated with: Dennis Wylder; under negotiation: price and terms of payment of lease
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

5.J. Conference with real estate negotiator - Gov. Code § 54956.8; property: 2020 14th Street, Santa Monica, California; City negotiator:

Oliver Chi, City Manager; owner of record: Thea Cappiccille; persons to be negotiated with: Thea Cappiccille; under negotiation: price and terms of payment of lease

4.J
Packet Pg. 235 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 10, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 11 February 10, 2026
Mayor Pro Tem Zwick was
excused at 9:40 p.m.

Councilmember Hall returned
at 10:00 p.m.

Councilmember Zernitskaya
was excused at 10:16 p.m.

Mayor Torosis was excused
at 10:35 p.m.

Mayor Torosis returned at
10:52 p.m.

The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

5.K. Conference with real estate negotiator - Gov. Code § 54956.8; property: 1333 4th/1324 5th Street (“4th/5th/Arizona”) and 1234 4th Street (“Parking Structure 1”), Santa Monica, California; City negotiators: Natalie Verlinich, Housing Manager, and Agustin Aleman, Senior Development Analyst; owner of record: City of Santa Monica; persons to be negotiated with: Mee Heh Risdon, Director of Housing, A Community of Friends; Jeff Edgren, Director of Acquisitions, Affirmed Housing; Frank Chang, Vice President of Acquisitions, Linc Housing; Gary Steinhardt, Metropolitan Pacific Real Estate Group; Jay Stark, Principal, The Pinyon Group; Bill Witte, CEO, Related California; David Grunwald, Executive Vice President, RMG Housing; Steven Spielberg, Senior Vice President, Alliant Communities; Andrew Bueno, Bueno Group; Charles Cohen, Project Manager, EAH, Inc.; Daniel Hanasab, Principal, Orum Capital; Luis de la Rosa, Pacific Urbanism; Shant Samuelian, Samuelian Group; Jason Yap, Director of Acquisitions, Sola Impact; Anup Patel, Director of Real Estate Development, West Hollywood Community Housing Corporation; Hunter Simmons, Partner, Bridge Realty Advisors; Mike Lanza, Project Manager, People Assisting the Homeless; Ian Fishburn, Managing Director, Vitruvian Development; under negotiation:
disposition of property, price and terms of payment
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

5.L. Conference with legal counsel - significant exposure to litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(2) - 2 cases
The City Attorney advised this matter was heard with no reportable action taken.

ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council meeting adjourned at 10:54 p.m.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Denise Anderson-Warren Caroline Torosis
Interim City Clerk Mayor

4.J
Packet Pg. 236 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 10, 2026 5:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 1 (NOT APPROVED)

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 10, 2026
A special meeting of the Santa Monica City Council was called to order by Mayor Torosis at 5:35 p.m., on Tuesday, February 10, 2026, at City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA.

Roll Call: Present: Mayor Caroline Torosis
Mayor Pro Tem Jesse Zwick (arrived at 5:39 p.m.)
Councilmember Lana Negrete
Councilmember Dan Hall
Councilmember Ellis Raskin
Councilmember Barry Snell
Councilmember Natalya Zernitskaya
Also Present: City Manager Oliver Chi
Interim City Attorney Heidi von Tongeln
Interim City Clerk Denise Anderson-Warren
CONVENE/PLEDGE On order of the Mayor, the City Council convened at 5:35 p.m., with all members present except Mayor Pro Tem Zwick. Councilmember Snell led the assemblage in the Pledge of Allegiance.

STATEMENT OF

ACCOUNTABILITY
(LAND

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT)
The City of Santa Monica Statement of Accountability (Land Acknowledgement) was read into the record by Councilmember Zernitskaya.

LEVINE ACT

DISCLOSURE
No Councilmembers made disclosures regarding the Levine Act (Govt Code Section 84308).

PUBLIC INPUT FOR
CLOSED SESSION ONLY:

Mayor Pro Tem Zwick
arrived at 5:39 p.m.

There were no members of the public present to comment on Closed Session items.

CLOSED SESSIONS
Mayor Pro Tem Zwick
excused at 9:40 p.m.

Councilmember Zernitskaya
On order of the Mayor, the City Council recessed at 7:30 p.m., to consider Closed Sessions and returned at 10:52 p.m., with all members, except Councilmember Zernitskaya and Mayor Pro Tem Zwick, to report the following:

5.A. Conference with legal counsel - potential initiation of litigation -

4.K
Packet Pg. 237 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 10, 2026 5:35 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) 2 excused at 10:16 p.m. Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(4) - 1 case The City Attorney reported that Council direction was given by a vote of 7- 0, to initiate litigation challenging terms of a fiscal year 2025 safer outcomes enhancing deescalation and crisis response training for law enforcement support for law enforcement agencies grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community oriented policing services to the Santa Monica Police Department in October 2025 in the amount equal to $487,600 to implement and expand deescalation training programs.

ADJOURNMENT On order of the Mayor, the City Council special meeting adjourned at 10:54 p.m.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Denise Anderson-Warren Caroline Torosis
Interim City Clerk Mayor

4.K
Packet Pg. 238 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Feb 10, 2026 5:35 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: February 24, 2026
Agenda Item: 5.A
1 of 2
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, Interim City Attorney, City Attorney's Office Subject: Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation - Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1):

John U.N.B. Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV12746; John Doe 1, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV15009; Hector Orozco v. John Doe: Does 1-2; LASC # 23SMCV03120; John JPC Doe v. Doe City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV22020; John AD Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV26548; John CW Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 23STCV29623; John Doe (A.G.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al; LASC # 23SMCV06066; John GA DOE, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV06484; John U.L.W. Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV06768; Joseph Garcia v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV01368; John Doe 15, et al. v.

City, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV04421; Jane EB Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV24146; John Doe (V.D.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05049; John Doe (D.F.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05050; John Doe (D.G.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05051; Jane Doe 13, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV27233; John AM Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV28433; John Doe v. City, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV05527; John Doe 53 v. City, et al.; LASC # 24STCV31763; John Doe (Y.M.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 24SMCV06355; Jane Doe 16, et al. v. a Public Entity, et al.; LASC # 25STCV02235; John Doe 62, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV04414; John Doe 23 v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV05850; John Doe (E.B.) v. Santa Monica Police Activities League, et al.; LASC # 25STCV06354; Jane PB Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV06880; John Doe 67 v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV10142; John Doe 68 v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV12089; John Doe 69, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV14031; John OR Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV16251; John RD Doe, et al. v. City, et al.; LASC # 25STCV24158

5.A
Packet Pg. 239
2 of 2
Prepared By: Andrew Cabello, Legal Assistant
Approved Forwarded to Council

5.A
Packet Pg. 240
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: February 24, 2026
Agenda Item: 5.J
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Heidi Von Tongeln, Interim City Attorney, City Attorney's Office Subject: Conference with real estate negotiator - Gov. Code § 54956.8; property: 5600 Rickenbacker Rd, Bell, CA 90201; City negotiator: Oliver Chi, City Manager; owner of record: The Salvation Army; persons to be negotiated with: Maddy Rodriguez; under negotiation: price and terms of payment of lease Prepared By: Andrew Cabello, Legal Assistant
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Written Comments

5.J
Packet Pg. 241
1 David Yakobson
From: Judy Branfman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 11:59 AM
To: councilmtgitems
Subject: Opposition to 5J on 2/24/26 Council agenda

EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica Councilmembers,
I’m wriƟng in opposiƟon to Item 5J, the proposal to contract with the SalvaƟon Army for a building in Bell to move Santa Monica unhoused people to. Bell is 23 miles away from Santa Monica, where many of the people you are proposing to push out have strong networks, friends, medical care, perhaps family, and other needed supports. Care for human beings is what you are abandoning with a project like this.

When Los Angeles tried moving people 20-plus miles away from their westside home base, people came back because the westside neighborhoods they were pushed out of are their homes. City Manager Chi is new to Santa Monica and might not know this is not how we Santa Monicans treat our neighbors who are having a hard Ɵme. I realize it’s easier for Mr. Chi to just push people out of the city, but instead he should be working with organizaƟons to build or renovate housing here in the city. Most of the new expensive apartment buildings in downtown Santa Monica are half empty – maybe he can ask those owners to step up and work with the city.

I also wonder how the city of Bell feels about Santa Monica pushing their unwanted residents to Bell. I hope you will turn this proposal down and develop a model program right here in Santa Monica that we can be proud of.

Sincerely,
Judy Branfman
Santa Monica
Item 5-J
February 24, 2026
Item 5-J
February 24, 2026

5.J.a
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Written Comments (7578 : 5.J. Closed Session: Salvation Army) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: February 24, 2026
Agenda Item: 11.A
1 of 19
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Anuj Gupta, Director of Transportation, Mobility (DOT) Subject: Receive and Adopt the Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study, funded by a Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Approve the recommendations outlined in the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study;

2. Direct staff to proceed with the phased implementation of the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study recommendations; and

3. Adopt a finding that this safety study is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines.

Summary
The City of Santa Monica (City) continues to advance transportation safety improvements to advance the City’s priority of ensuring Clean Streets and Safe Neighborhoods, and the City Council’s Vision Zero commitment to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries caused by traffic collisions. As a result of prior studies such as the Vision Zero Action Plan and the Local Roadway Safety Plan, Santa Monica Boulevard emerged as a high priority corridor that has seen severe traffic related injuries and one fatality over the past ten years. To further study this corridor, staff secured a California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Sustainable Communities planning grant, which provides funding for transportation and land use planning projects to reduce transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions and projects that enhance safe use of roadways.

11.A
Packet Pg. 243
2 of 19
The Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study (Attachment A) (Study) began in October 2024, engaging stakeholders and residents about how to reduce crashes along this corridor. During this time, City staff have been working with a consultant team to analyze the previous ten years of reported crash data along the corridor and pairing crash trends with community feedback to establish a set of safety and transit recommendations for Santa Monica Boulevard from Ocean Avenue to Centinela Avenue (the eastern city limit). On June 10, 2025, City staff presented initial recommendations to City Council in a Study Session. Informed by Council feedback and direction, staff then presented a full suite of design recommendations to the broader public in an open house community meeting on September 6, 2025.

Using final input from City leadership and the community, the Study identifies a series of phased improvements for the corridor. If approved and adopted, City staff will begin identifying funding for initial rollout of phase 1 improvements as well as larger grant opportunities to fund longer-term phase 2 implementation. This staff report summarizes the Study’s key findings, community outreach approach, and recommendations.

Background
On February 23, 2016, the City Council adopted the Pedestrian Action Plan, which included the Vision Zero commitment to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries caused by traffic collisions on Santa Monica roadways. In 2017, the City analyzed 11 years of crash data (2006 to 2016) to create a “Priority Network” (representing the 10% of City streets that account for 50% of severe and fatal crashes) to focus the City’s future roadway safety enhancements. In 2022, the City renewed its analysis by completing the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), which analyzed the most recently available crash data (2015 to 2019) to further prioritize safety improvements (Attachment B).

These efforts enabled the City to receive state and regional grant funding for numerous roadway design improvements targeted at addressing specific roadway challenges identified in the data, such as the Wilshire Boulevard Safety Study and Improvement projects, the East Pico Safety Study quick-build project, and smaller interventions such as crosswalk modernization, daylighting efforts, rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), and all-way stop implementation. Both the 2017 Vision Zero analysis and the 2022 LRSP identified Santa Monica Boulevard as a priority corridor that experienced

11.A
Packet Pg. 244
3 of 19
eight fatal or severe injury crashes in the 2017 analysis, and 206 total crashes resulting in one fatality and nine severe injuries in the LRSP analysis.

On March 9, 2023, staff applied to Caltrans for the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study to evaluate collisions and identify targeted safety enhancements along the Santa Monica Boulevard corridor. The application was prepared based on the priorities of the City Council’s adopted plans and programs. On August 31, 2023, the City was awarded $522,327 in grant funds, and on November 14, 2023, the Council adopted a resolution to accept the awarded Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant with a required $67,673 in matching funds from Transportation Impact Fee (TIF) revenues, for a total project cost of $590,000 (Attachment C). On June 10, 2025 (Attachment D), City staff conducted a study session for the Study and presented preliminary recommendations to City Council. Council direction supported the approach for a final open house community meeting, hosted on September 6, 2025, at the Santa Monica Family YMCA, before returning to City Council for final adoption.

Discussion
The project approach of the Study was to:

1. Gather existing conditions information to understand the context of the corridor,

2. Gather community feedback through a robust public outreach process, and

3. Identify targeted countermeasures through a detailed and data-driven process.

Two major components of the Study included an in-depth crash analysis and a strong community engagement process to better understand crash patterns, safety concerns, and the community’s lived experiences/observations while traveling on Santa Monica Boulevard. Based on this process, the project team developed recommendations and roadway enhancements to help address identified challenges. The recommended enhancements serve to better connect adjacent residents to major destinations and job centers, while reducing crashes for people walking, cycling, driving, and taking transit.

The Study does not determine the cause(s) of the referenced collisions, nor does it assign fault or liability to any individual or entity. The review was limited to evaluating existing roadway conditions and identifying potential improvements. All recommendations are prospective in nature and are intended solely to enhance traffic

11.A
Packet Pg. 245
4 of 19
operations and safety, not to reach conclusions regarding causation. Notably, not all incidents are preventable from a roadway design and/or safety enhancement process.

Crash Analysis
In winter 2024/2025, the project team conducted a comprehensive crash analysis of Santa Monica Boulevard focused on the last 10 years of crash data and recent transit data (Attachment A, Appendix B). During 2015-2024, 435 injury crashes and 401 Property Damage Only (PDO) crashes in which no one is injured but damage occurs to vehicles or other property—were recorded along the study corridor. Figure 1 illustrates the number of crashes and their distribution by injury severity.

Figure 1 - Distribution of Severity for all Crashes
Below are key trends identified in the crash analysis:
• The two most common age groups for people involved in crashes are between 26–35 and 36–45, accounting for 24% and 17% of those involved, respectively.

Moreover, adults aged 65+ make up 23% of all pedestrians involved in injury crashes, a higher proportion than the 13% of drivers in this age group. • Pedestrians are overrepresented in fatal and severe injury crashes, making up 29% of such incidents compared to 11% in all crashes. Bicycle and scooter crashes are also overrepresented in serious injury crashes (26%) compared to all crashes (8.4%).
• The analysis found that 83% of all crashes occur at intersections, while the remaining 17% occur at midblock locations. Crashes also occur most frequently

11.A
Packet Pg. 246
5 of 19
at signalized intersections, but injury severity is highest at unsignalized intersections where the side streets are stop-sign controlled. • In the past 10 years, one fatality along the corridor has occurred at the intersection of 18th Street.
• The most common vehicle to vehicle crashes involves two vehicles proceeding straight. These movements are typical for broadside crashes. Other common scenarios include a vehicle proceeding straight colliding with a vehicle making a left turn, or a vehicle proceeding straight into a stopped vehicle. • The dominant movement preceding vehicle to pedestrian crashes involves a vehicle making a left turn into a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection.
• The most common preceding movement in vehicle to bicycle crashes involves a vehicle making a right turn, making a left turn, or proceeding straight, while the bicycle was proceeding straight in all instances.

Given the crash analysis’ focus on vulnerable road users and severe injury crashes, the analysis includes a list of intersections organized by weighted crash severity. This weighting exercise served as a reference for selecting improvements at intersections but is not the sole determining factor since some intersections may have more desirable destinations, greater community feedback, or opportunities to actualize roadway improvements.

Community Engagement and Interdepartmental Coordination The Safety Study Team applied a robust community engagement process and key tactics to reach a broad audience of stakeholders and community members. This included presentations to stakeholder groups including the Pico Neighborhood Association, Mid City Neighbors, and Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., as well as a presentation to the City’s Planning Commission. Other major milestones included a three-week pop-up installation at the Santa Monica Main Library (Touchpoint #1), a community walk audit co-hosted by Providence St. John’s Health Center (Touchpoint #2), a community open-house workshop at the YMCA (Touchpoint #3), 10,000 mailed postcards with project information to residents and businesses within a half-mile radius of the corridor, door-knocking and speaking with businesses along the corridor, and a

11.A
Packet Pg. 247
6 of 19
robust online survey that received more than 350 comments. Key themes that emerged from the community regarding desired improvements included:
• Improving crossing conditions for pedestrians, especially at uncontrolled intersections;
• Addressing vehicles speeding and failing to yield;
• Addressing vehicles parked in red curb zones and trucks loading outside of designated loading zones;
• Addressing decreased visibility at dusk and at night for people walking and driving;
• Narrowing travel lanes through restriping or installation of medians; and • Reducing turning movements conflicts at intersections.

The project team also established a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting of representatives from DOT’s Mobility Division, Traffic Management, Public Works, Santa Monica Police Department, Santa Monica Fire Department, and Big Blue Bus. The TAC supported the development of this study at each milestone, including the traffic operational analysis, to ensure that recommendations in this project support the optimization of traffic signals. The TAC also supported the development of a marked crosswalk guidance report which outlines the justification for where crosswalks are selected, which treatments accompany new crosswalks (e.g., Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, or RRFBs), and how many crosswalk legs are recommended based on local expertise.

Traffic Operations Analysis
In addition to the detailed safety analysis and the community feedback, the recommended improvements for Santa Monica Boulevard were also informed by a detailed level of service (LOS) operations analysis that evaluated each of the signalized and unsignalized intersections along the corridor. While this safety study focuses on improvements that address documented crash patterns, vehicular operations should also be considered in conjunction with the crash data. Through this analysis, the study team was able to set the foundation for coordinating and optimizing signal timing, especially for the section between 20th Street and 26th Street.

11.A
Packet Pg. 248
7 of 19
Results from the crash analysis, community engagement, and traffic operations analysis ultimately support recommendations at every intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard.

Recommendations and Phasing
One of the intentions of the Santa Monica Safety Study is to identify the lowest cost/highest impact approach to improving the corridor considering both design and timeline of implementation. The Study recommends a phased approach so that enhancements can be deployed quickly with available funding, tested and evaluated, and modified as required before more permanent and capital-intensive measures are designed and constructed. Phase 1 improvements could be implemented within two to five years and rely on local funding sources (e.g. Measure K, Measure M, Transportation Impact Fees (TIF), or the City General Fund), or in coordination with other planned improvements along Santa Monica Boulevard such as private property development or planned annual repaving of the corridor. These improvements could include, but are not limited to:
• Consistent pavement markings and signage,
• Right-Turn-Only-Restrictions from side streets at unsignalized intersections, • Bicycle crossing improvements such as bike detection and carrying bike lanes through intersections,
• Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPIs),
• Signal timing coordination at all signalized intersections that will help mitigate congestion and ensure speed limit adherence (with a particular focus on the segment between 20th and 26th Streets),
• Marking new crosswalks (where adequate curb ramps are present), and • Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs).

Phase 2 improvements are long-term projects that require more significant design/civil engineering work, change curb lines, and/or impact utilities. These projects would be informed by and modified in accordance with lessons learned from the Phase 1 implementation and are designed thoughtfully before constructing. The scale and cost of Phase 2 projects would necessitate additional funding from local, state, or federal grants, and should be prioritized when funding opportunities are presented. Phase 2

11.A
Packet Pg. 249
8 of 19
improvements could be implemented in three to ten years and could include, but are not limited to:
• New signals or left turn phasing,
• Concrete curb extensions and median refuge islands, and • Improved street lighting.

As a result of the community engagement feedback, crash analysis, and lessons learned from the Wilshire Boulevard Safety Study project, the project team identified three categories for improvements: 1) corridor-wide needs that can be applied throughout Santa Monica Boulevard, 2) transit improvements to enhance transit speed and efficiency along the corridor 3) focus intersection recommendations-- priority locations identified for targeted enhancements. The recommendations will be subject to engineering review in the design phase to determine feasibility considering existing structures, traffic patterns and consistency with Caltrans or other governing design requirements
Corridor-wide Recommendations
Corridor-wide recommendations would include the installation of low- to moderate-cost countermeasures consistently throughout the corridor with an emphasis on locations with a high risk of severe crashes. Many of these improvements are identified as Phase 1 improvements and include:
• Consistent pavement markings and signage,
• Right-Turn-Only-Restrictions from side streets at unsignalized intersections, • Bicycle crossing improvements such as bike detection and carrying bike lanes through intersections,
• Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPIs), and
• Signal timing coordination at all signalized intersections.

Transit Improvements
Transit improvements were identified throughout the corridor to improve reliability and frequency. The analysis also looked at transit performance for Big Blue Bus (BBB) Route 1 and Metro Line 4, both of which travel the extent of Santa Monica Boulevard.

Beyond focusing on traffic safety, the study includes a traffic analysis to better manage overall traffic flow, which supports transit service. Transit improvement

11.A
Packet Pg. 250
9 of 19
recommendations for Santa Monica Boulevard include the relocation of bus stops from the near side to the far side of the intersection at 11th Street, 14th Street, and Berkeley Street. Relocating the bus stop to the far side of the intersection can reduce pedestrian crashes since it eliminates the sight distance restriction caused by the bus at intersections.

For bus stops at nearside locations that cannot move far side due to existing conflicts (driveways, etc.), queue jumps are recommended. Queue jumps allow buses to bypass congested traffic at intersections, reducing delays and improving transit reliability.

Queue jumps are recommended at Lincoln Boulevard and 26th Street. Peak-hour bus only lanes are recommended and conceptually feasible in the section from Princeton Street to Centinela Avenue, where the profile of the street and presence of parking lanes are sufficient enough to carry dedicated bus lanes without necessitating the removal of vehicle travel lanes. This can serve as a half-mile extension for a bus-only lane project that Caltrans is currently implementing from I-405 to Centinela Avenue (1.4 miles).

Focus Intersection Improvements
As part of this project’s scope of work, staff have recommended 14 focus intersections where unique concept-level design plans are required and applied the following approach to determine these locations:
• Crash History – Given the focus on vulnerable road users and severe injury crashes, the analysis includes a list of intersections organized by weighted crash severity.
• Community Feedback and Response – with hundreds of comments received through the engagement process, the project team drew from the public’s detailed experiences to support and confirm improvement types and locations. • Land Use and Proximity to Community Resources – many locations along Santa Monica Boulevard are known pedestrian generators or natural desire lines. For example, 15th, 16th, 17th streets are known paths connecting the 17th St./SMC Metro E Line Station to UCLA Santa Monica Medical Center. • Field Observations – Observations from both the community walk audit (Touchpoint #2) and the walk audit with the TAC gave insight to how people are

11.A
Packet Pg. 251
10 of 19
using Santa Monica Boulevard. For example, pedestrians were observed crossing at Chelsea Avenue during all times of the day, a location without a marked crosswalk.

Using this framework, staff recommend the following improvements at focus intersections that respond to the crash history, community feedback, and observed desire lines of the residents. Recommendations also include feedback from City Council during the June 10th, 2025, Study Session to reduce speeds by narrowing travel lanes, ensure directional curb ramps are installed, and to include landscaped median islands on the eastern end of the corridor to create a gateway treatment and beautify the corridor. These concept-level plans shall be further developed and leveraged for funding and construction.
6th Street at Santa Monica Boulevard is a busy Downtown intersection near community anchors including the Main Library, the Santa Monica Family YMCA, and many businesses. There are also key bicycle and bus routes at this intersection, and high pedestrian traffic. Between 2015 and 2024, a total of 20 crashes occurred at this intersection, including three that resulted in serious injuries. The recommendations for 6th Street include:

Phase 1- A new scramble intersection with diagonal pedestrian crossings, “No Right on Red” turn restrictions, and new audible pedestrian push buttons. Bicycle enhancements include new striping on the approaches as well as bike boxes to allow cyclists to bypass vehicle queues. Relocating the westbound BBB Route 1 bus stop to the northeast corner in front of the Downtown library can support transit route optimization though it would require the installation of a bus pad (as a phase 2 effort).

Phase 2 - Curb extensions at two corners to enhance pedestrian visibility, reduce crossing distances, and reduce the speeds of right-turning vehicles approaching the intersection. The curb extension at the southwest corner includes a near-side bus stop and expanded sidewalks for transit passengers.

Lincoln Boulevard at Santa Monica Boulevard was identified as a focus intersection based on comments throughout the engagement process and crash history. Between 2015 and 2024, 38 crashes were reported with two serious injuries. In addition, Lincoln

11.A
Packet Pg. 252
11 of 19
Boulevard serves as a truck route with large vehicle traffic in the north-south directions.

The recommendations for Lincoln Boulevard include:

Phase 1- Modifying the existing traffic signal at the intersection to include leading pedestrian intervals and new pedestrian-activated push buttons. Since the eastbound left-turn movement currently operates with a permissive movement, it’s recommended this be converted to a protected left turns to reduce vehicular and pedestrian conflicts. Installation of painted curb striping and bollards can help narrow travel lanes close to the intersection.

Phase 2 - A modified curb extension on the southwest corner of the intersection would continue west to include the near-side bus stop and allow expanded sidewalks for passenger pickup and drop-off. On the other side of the street in the westbound direction, traffic signal modifications with signage enhancements would include transit signal priority, allowing buses to bypass vehicle queues. 10th Street at Santa Monica Boulevard is a two-way stop-controlled intersection with no marked crosswalk. This location is adjacent to the Santa Monica College Performing Arts Center and several small businesses. Crash history at this intersection includes two pedestrian crashes (one injury and one severe injury) for people crossing Santa Monica Boulevard. Considering this, the following improvements are recommended:

Phase 1 – A new crosswalk and flashing beacons at the west leg of the intersection to support crossings. To minimize conflicts with turning vehicles, a right turn only requirement from the side streets is also recommended. Curb extensions using paint and bollards as well as hardening center lines help slow turning vehicles at the intersection.

Phase 2 – Concrete curb extensions at the new crosswalk leg are recommended with directional curb ramps. This may require relocation of catch basins and other existing utilities.
11th Street at Santa Monica Boulevard is a signalized intersection with class 2 bike lanes in the northbound and southbound approaches, and a pair of bus stops. Of all the intersections along Santa Monica Boulevard, 11th Street ranked number 11 for weighted crash severity. Recommendations at this intersection include:

Phase 1 – Extending bicycle lanes to the intersection and adding bicycle conflict markings through the intersection to support connecting with the broader bike

11.A
Packet Pg. 253
12 of 19
network. Since the eastbound left-turn movement currently operates with a permissive movement, it is recommended this be converted to a protected left turn to reduce vehicular and pedestrian conflicts. Staff also recommend relocating the eastbound bus stop at 11th Street to the far side of the intersection.

Phase 2 – Additional recommendations include reconstructing the curb ramps so they are directional and including a bus pad for the relocated bus stop. 14th Street at Santa Monica Boulevard was identified as a focus intersection because of the multiple bicycle and pedestrian involved crashes and volume of comments received by the community. 14th Street also has a Class II bike lane that intersects Santa Monica Boulevard and the community expressed interest in enhancing cyclist comfort at this location. The recommendations for 14th Street include:

Phase 1 – Adding leading pedestrian interval signal phasing and new audible pedestrian-push buttons. Enhanced bicycle accommodation is also recommended at the intersection approaches via conflict striping across Santa Monica Boulevard; supporting connections to the bike network. The westbound bus stop is recommended to be relocated to the far-side to improve transit operations.

Phase 2 – The existing curb ramps are also recommended to be reconstructed directional ramps, providing clear, more direct pedestrian crossings. Lastly, to accommodate the bus stop relocation, a bus pad shall be installed. 15th Street at Santa Monica Boulevard experienced 24 crashes between 2015 and 2024 with two crashes involving a pedestrian, and two crashes resulting in severe injuries. Recommendations at this intersection include:

Phase 1 – Installing painted curb extensions at the existing flashing beacon as well as painted curb extensions into Santa Monica Boulevard, and into 15th Street on the northeast corner. Additional daylighting treatments like painted red curbs and buffered striping are recommended on the westbound approach and eastbound departure. The right-turn only restriction from 15th Street onto Santa Monica Boulevard will be reinforced with pavement markings and flex posts as well as hardened centerlines to prevent left-turn movements from the minor

11.A
Packet Pg. 254
13 of 19
street. The centerline hardening also helps to reduce left-turn turning speeds from Santa Monica Boulevard onto the minor street.

Phase 2 - With the construction of new concrete curb extensions, the existing curb ramps would be reconstructed to be directional ramps, providing clearer, aligned crossings. Constructing curb extensions and ramps will require relocation of catch basins at this location.
16th Street and Santa Monica Boulevard is the primary pedestrian crossing connecting 17th Street/ SMC Metro station to the UCLA Medical Campus located one block to the north. Between 2015 and 2024, 37 crashes were reported at Santa Monica Boulevard and 16th Street. Five of those crashes involved a pedestrian and four involved a bicyclist. Community engagement efforts highlighted that this intersection has experienced corner sight issues and difficulties crossing the street. While there is an existing flashing beacon across Santa Monica Boulevard on the east side of the intersection, the recommended improvements include:

Phase 1 – Refreshing the high visibility crosswalk and including painted curb extensions. Installing right-turn only restrictions from 16th Street onto Santa Monica Boulevard and hardened centerlines will be reinforced with pavement markings and flex posts to limit left-turn movements from the minor street.

Phase 2 – Installing concrete curb extensions and removing the median refuge island, which is currently under sized to act as a refuge. The new curb extensions would allow for new directional curb ramps. Constructing curb extensions and ramps will require relocation of catch basins at this location. 18th Street at Santa Monica Boulevard is an unsignalized intersection with an existing marked crosswalk and flashing beacon at the west leg of the intersection. Of all the intersections along Santa Monica Boulevard, 18th Street ranked eighth when looking at crash severity, and many vehicle crashes at this intersection occur with vehicles proceeding through from the side streets, resulting in broadside injury crashes.

Considering the existing crosswalk and flashing beacon, the following improvements are recommended:

Phase 1 – Painted curb extensions to shorten the crossing distance for people walking, as well as right-turn only restrictions from the side streets to minimize conflicts with turning or through vehicle movements. Recommended centerline

11.A
Packet Pg. 255
14 of 19
hardening can also help reduce left-turn turning speeds from Santa Monica Boulevard onto 18th Street.

Phase 2 – Installing concrete curb extensions and directional curb ramps.

Constructing curb extensions and ramps will require relocation of catch basins at this location.
19th Street at Santa Monica Boulevard is a two-way stop-control intersection, like 18th Street, with a documented crash history. The recommendations at this intersection include:

Phase 1 – A new crosswalk at the east leg with a flashing beacon and painted curb extensions to support pedestrian crossings. Additional right-turn only restrictions from 19th Street onto Santa Monica Boulevard will be reinforced with pavement markings and flex posts as well as hardened centerlines to prevent left-turn movements from the minor street.

Phase 2 – Concrete curb extensions into Santa Monica Boulevard are also recommended at the southeast and northeast corners as well as curb extensions into 19th Street on the southwest corner only. The new curb extensions allow for directional curb ramps to be installed, providing more direct crossings for pedestrians. Constructing curb extensions and ramps will require relocation of catch basins at this location.

Chelsea Avenue at Santa Monica Boulevard stands out as a key location for improvement throughout this project. It serves McKinley Elementary School students, parents, and staff connect to and from school. During the Community Walk Audit (Touchpoint #2), community members experienced high vehicular speeds along Santa Monica Boulevard in front of the school as well as the long distances between pedestrian crossing opportunities. Through discussions with the school, teachers, the Parent Teacher Association (PTA), crossing guards, and community members, there was a strong desire for a robust crossing opportunity at this location.

In the Spring of 2025, after the Walk Audit and Social Pinpoint survey, the City of Santa Monica implemented Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) Pedestrian Improvements at Six Schools, which included McKinley Elementary. These improvements included traffic signal modifications as well as new curb extensions, curb ramp improvements, and crosswalk renewals at Cloverfield Boulevard. The project also included crosswalk

11.A
Packet Pg. 256
15 of 19
renewals across Chelsea Avenue, and addition of a center two-way left turn lane at Chelsea Avenue. The improvements that are recommended as part of this Study include:

Phase 1 – installing right turn only restrictions from the side street (southbound from Chelsea Avenue). The remaining recommendations at this intersection are dependent on each other and require constructing improvements all at once in phase 2.

Phase 2 - Installing a new pedestrian traffic signal, a raised median with low-lying native vegetation, and a high visibility crosswalk with directional curb ramps. The pedestrian signal can be synchronized with the nearby signal at Cloverfield Boulevard and stop traffic along Santa Monica Boulevard to allow school children to cross. The raised median enforces the right-turn only restriction and would eliminate the left-turn conflicts from Santa Monica Boulevard onto the side streets; minimizing the number of potential conflicts at this intersection. The City’s Bicycle Action Plan also identifies Chelsea Avenue and Park Drive as a future priority connection. The recommended improvements include bicycle conflict striping through the intersection as well as bicycle detection for the pedestrian signal. The new raised median includes an opening to connect the Class III sharrow on Chelsea Avenue to the Class II receiving bike lane segment on Park Drive, facilitating connections to the forthcoming protected bike lane along Broadway.
26th Street at Santa Monica Boulevard is a signalized intersection with critical northsouth connections for many residents. During the Safety Audit, the project team observed drivers who were attempting left turns from Santa Monica Boulevard onto 26th Street during the permissive phases and could not find an adequate gap in oncoming traffic to complete their turns. Vehicles were also seen blocking the crosswalks due to the upstream queueing. Considering this, the following improvements are recommended:

Phase 1 – Implement signal upgrades including protected-left turn signals to reduce conflicts with vehicles waiting in the middle of the intersection, and leading pedestrian intervals to support pedestrians crossing.

11.A
Packet Pg. 257
16 of 19
Phase 2 - Additional recommendations include installing enlarged bus bulbs (curb extensions) which facilitate nearside pickup/drop off and offer larger areas for pedestrians and street furniture in a currently constrained space. These bulbs are recommended at the current bus stop locations and shall be paired with transit signal priority in the westbound direction and require new bus pads.

Concrete curb extensions at this intersection will also help with shortening crossings and redirect curb ramps so they are directional (in-line with sidewalk paths). Constructing curb extensions and ramps will require relocation of catch basins at this location.

Princeton Street at Santa Monica Boulevard has an existing marked crosswalk and flashing beacon to support pedestrian crossings. The crash analysis memo showed there have been 18 crashes at this intersection over the last decade, and there was an additional recent notable crash in late 2025 that severely impacted a local business and a family’s residence. Considering this, the recommendations serve to further enhance the pedestrian crossing and reduce turning movements for vehicles at this intersection.

Improvements at Princeton Street include:

Phase 1 – Refreshing the existing marked crosswalk and adding right-turn only restrictions from Princton Street onto Santa Monica Boulevard, reinforced with pavement markings and flex posts. In addition, a new median island implemented with paint and bollards can shorten the profile of this intersection so that pedestrians would only need to cross one direction of traffic at a time and restrict left turn movements from Santa Monica Boulevard onto Princeton Street from the eastbound direction, but still allows them in the westbound direction.

Phase 2 - The painted median shall be constructed as a landscaped median with an additional flashing beacon in the center as well as pedestrian-level lighting.

Curb ramps shall be reconstructed along the side streets to align pedestrian crossings.

Stanford Street at Santa Monica Boulevard was highlighted during the walk audit as having pedestrian-generating land use, such as small businesses near high density residential housing. There have been 15 collisions at this intersection over the last decade and the profile of the street at this intersection is the widest, approximately 76

11.A
Packet Pg. 258
17 of 19
feet (a width similar to Lincoln Boulevard). To support pedestrian activity and deter speeding drivers, recommendations at the intersection include:

Phase 1 - A new crosswalk at the east leg with flashing beacons and a median refuge implemented with paint and bollards. The median by-nature restricts one left turn lane on Santa Monica Boulevard which reduces turning movement conflicts much like the proposed right-turn only restrictions from the side streets.

Phase 2 – Formalizing the median refuge as a landscaped median and elongated to the entire profile of the center left turn lane, approximately 180 feet in length, and include low lying native vegetation as well as pedestrian level lighting at the crosswalk. These improvements are similar to unsignalized crossings along Wilshire Boulevard and can help narrow travel lanes; serving as a gateway feature as drivers enter Santa Monica. The design for this intersection and the eastern segment of Santa Monica boulevard (from Princeton Street to Centinela Avenue), supports a forthcoming peak-hour bus-only lane that is a portion of the full Santa Monica Boulevard corridor being studied under a separate project and coordinated by the Westside Cities Council of Governments (WSSCOG).

Franklin Street at Santa Monica Boulevard was identified as an area of focus through the online social pinpoint mapping survey where community members noted absence of crossing opportunities across Santa Monica Boulevard. According to the crash analysis, between 2015-2024, Franklin Street saw a total of 14 crashes at the intersection with one crash causing serious injury and 3 total crashes involved pedestrian, bicyclists, and/or scooters. Recommendations at Franklin Street are similar to Stanford Street and include:

Phase 1 - A new crosswalk at the west leg with a painted median refuge and flashing beacons. This intersection design also includes right-turn only restrictions from the side streets and removal of the eastbound left turn lane for the median.

Phase 2 – Formalizing the median refuge as a landscaped median and elongated to the entire profile of the center left turn lane. Curb ramps shall be reconstructed along the side streets to align pedestrian crossings.

11.A
Packet Pg. 259
18 of 19
While every intersection along Santa Monica Boulevard has recommended enhancements, the focus intersections require concept-level design plans to support funding applications.

Next Steps
The total estimated cost for design and construction of all improvements recommended in the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study is approximately $11,061,000 depending on materials, time frame, and other factors. If adopted, staff will identify local funding sources and opportunities (e.g. Measure K, Measure M, Transportation Impact Fees (TIF), Annual Repaving, the City General Fund, etc.) to roll out elements of the study with a focus on Phase 1 implementation. In a parallel effort, staff would prioritize recommended Phase 2 improvements for future grant funding opportunities. The Study concludes with an outline of potential competitive grant funding opportunities to support the implementation of this project (i.e. Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP), Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Measure M, FTA Safe Streets for All (SS4A), etc.). As with most grant program requirements, adoption of a project plan such as the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study by City Council is an essential step for securing grant funds.

As Staff advances the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study recommendations, staff will continue to provide project updates through the Take the Friendly Road Newsletter as well as the City’s website and social media channels.

Environmental Review
The Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15301 exempts Class 1 (Existing Facilities) projects from CEQA, which includes the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The study identifies safety enhancements on existing street network, such as curb extensions, medians, crosswalk markings, and signal change, and would not expand or materially increase the capacity of the City’s street network. Therefore, the safety study is categorically exempt as set forth in Section 15301 of the CEQA guidelines.

11.A
Packet Pg. 260
19 of 19
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate additional financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Staff will return to Council with specific budget actions associated with implementation and ongoing costs associated with the phased recommendations in the future.

Prepared By: Carlos Hernandez, Senior Transportation Planner - Bicycle Program
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices
B. B. Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan
C. C. SMBSS Funding Resolution
D. D. Santa Monica Blvd. Safety Study City Council Study Session E. Written Comments
F. PowerPoint Presentation

11.A
Packet Pg. 261

SANTA M

SAFETY STUDY
February 2026

NICA B ULEVARD

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) [ THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ]

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

STAFF TEAM

INTERDEPARTMENTAL TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE PREPARED BY Carlos Hernandez Santa Monica Department of Transportation, Mobility Division Kyle Kozar Santa Monica Department of Transportation, Mobility Division Colleen Stoll - Santa Monica Department of Transportation, Mobility Division Jason Kligier, AICP - Santa Monica Department of Transportation, Mobility Division Jacqui Swartz - Santa Monica Department of Transportation, Mobility Division Mia Silver - Santa Monica Department of Transportation, Mobility Division Joe Conroy - Santa Monica Department of Transportation, Mobility Division Shayne Smith - Santa Monica Department of Transportation, Mobility Division Trevor Thomas - Santa Monica Department of Transportation, Mobility Division Edward Escarcega - Santa Monica Department of Transportation, Mobility Division Sergeant Jason Olson - Santa Monica Police Department
Officer Koby Arnold - Santa Monica Police Department
Sergeant Evan Raleigh - Santa Monica Police Department
Captain Roberto Villegas - Santa Monica Police Department Lieutenant Roberto Lucio - Santa Monica Police Department Alfredo Torales - Santa Monica Department of Transportation, Big Blue Bus Abdallah Daboussi - Santa Monica Department of Transportation, Big Blue Bus Joseph Santiago - Santa Monica Department of Transportation, Big Blue Bus Jason Hoang - Santa Monica Public Works Department
Alisha Flores - Santa Monica Public Works Department
Senior Inspector Ryan Demirdjian - Santa Monica Fire Department Fire Marshal Joe Cavin - Santa Monica Fire Department
Deputy Chief Dan Caldwell - Santa Monica Fire Department Michael Baker International

WITH SUPPORT FROM
Nelson Nygaard & HereLA

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................1 Take the Friendly Road.......................................................................................................................................................................2 Study Funding ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Study Area ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 POLICY & PLANNING CONTEXT.................................................................................................................................................. 5 Existing Safety Studies .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Other Plans ......................................................................................................................................................................................7 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT....................................................................................................................................................... 9 Approach .......................................................................................................................................................................................10 Strategies......................................................................................................................................................................................10 SAFETY AUDIT & ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 Roadway Characteristics ................................................................................................................................................................19 Crash Analysis ...............................................................................................................................................................................20 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS............................................................................................................................................................... 27 Transit Operations ..........................................................................................................................................................................28 Vehicular Operations.......................................................................................................................................................................29 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................................................................. 31 Safety Treatment Options ................................................................................................................................................................33 Corridor-Wide Safety Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................38 Focus Intersections and Safety Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 41 NEXT STEPS ...............................................................................................................................................................................57 Cost Estimate ................................................................................................................................................................................59 Potential Phasing............................................................................................................................................................................60 Grant Funding ................................................................................................................................................................................67 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Figure 1 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan Priority Streets and Intersections ....................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2 Light Up the Night Sticker Installation Results .....................................................................................................................................................11 Figure 3 Walk Audit Route ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 4 Total Crashes by Injury Level.............................................................................................................................................................................20 Figure 5 Annual Crashes by Injury Level..........................................................................................................................................................................20 Figure 6 Age Distribution of People Involved in Injury Crashes ........................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 7 Crashes by Mode and Severity .......................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 8 Intersection and Midblock Crashes by Severity ...................................................................................................................................................22 Figure 9 Crash Concentration on Santa Monica Boulevard ................................................................................................................................................22 Figure 10 Intersection and Midblock Injury Crashes by Crash Mode .....................................................................................................................................23 Figure 11 Crash Injury Level by Location Type....................................................................................................................................................................23 Figure 12 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Scooter Injury Crashes by Location Type .........................................................................................................................23 Figure 13 Crashes by Time of Day by Severity ...................................................................................................................................................................24 Figure 14 Crashes by Injury Level and Lighting Conditions..................................................................................................................................................24 Figure 15 Primary Collision Factors in Injury Crashes.........................................................................................................................................................25 Figure 16 Speed-Related Crashes by Injury Level ..............................................................................................................................................................25 Figure 17 Impairment Related Crashes by Injury Level .......................................................................................................................................................25 Figure 18 Focus Intersections Locations ......................................................................................................................................................................... 41 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page iii

LIST OF FIGURES

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Table 1 Speed Limits vs. 85th Percentile Speeds............................................................................................................................................................19 Table 2 Potential Phasing ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 61 Table 3 Regional and Local Funding ..............................................................................................................................................................................67 Table 4 State Funding .................................................................................................................................................................................................68 Appendix A - Community Engagement Summaries
Appendix B - Safety Analysis Memorandum
Appendix C - Operations Analysis
Appendix D - Cost Estimates
Appendix E - Concept Plans
SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page iv

LIST OF TABLES

APPENDIX

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) [ THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ]

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

1. INTRODUCTION

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 2

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD,

THEN AND NOW
Known as “America’s Main Street,” Route
66 spans more than 2,400 miles throughout
eight states, connecting Chicago to Santa
Monica. It was one of the United States’
first continuous stretches of paved highway
and served as a major path for those who
migrated west. Route 66 was commissioned
on November 11, 1926, and on January 1,
1936, Santa Monica Boulevard became a part
of Route 66, which currently terminates
at the intersection of Lincoln and Olympic
boulevards. It was decommissioned as
a federal highway in 1985 following the
creation of the Interstate Highway System.

Route 66 celebrates its centennial in 2026.

Today, Santa Monica Boulevard is one of the
City’s principal east-west arterial roads with
many connections to transit, jobs, housing,
services, and other destinations along this
active and developed corridor.

The City of Santa Monica is committed to ensuring
its streets and neighborhoods are clean and safe.

To that end, the City has made a commitment to
eliminate fatalities and severe injuries caused
by traffic collisions. This Santa Monica Boulevard
Safety Study has been created in support of these
goals.

Santa Monica Boulevard is a critical street that
provides multimodal access to community and
regional destinations such as:
• Santa Monica Public Library
• Santa Monica College Performing Arts Center
• McKinley Elementary School
• Nearby public parks including Memorial Park,
Reed Park, and Douglas Park
• High density residential neighborhoods
• Large job centers including Downtown Santa
Monica, Santa Monica UCLA Medical Center, and
Providence Saint John’s Health Center
The Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study identifies
improvements that address crash patterns on
Santa Monica Boulevard, as well as observations
and experiences shared by community members
through a robust community engagement process.

The recommendations aim to improve conditions
for people walking, driving, and taking transit,
and serve to strengthen connectivity to major
destinations and job centers. Ultimately, this study
approach included:

1. Gathering existing conditions

2. Seeking community feedback, and

3. Identifying targeted safety enhancements

1.1 TAKE THE

FRIENDLY ROAD
Take the Friendly Road is Santa Monica’s Vision
Zero-based traffic safety initiative focused
on connecting the community to educational
resources and infrastructure projects that improve
street safety and help reach the goal of eliminating
all fatal and severe injury crashes from our streets
by 2026. This action was adopted by the City Council
in the 2016 Pedestrian Action Plan.

In 2022, the City completed the Local Roadway
Safety Plan (LRSP), which builds on the previous
Vision Zero work launched in 2017 to eliminate
fatal and severe crashes on city streets. Both of
these studies identified Santa Monica Boulevard
as a top priority due to the number and severity of
crashes that occurred during the analysis period.

According to the LRSP, between 2015 and 2019, the

2.4 mile stretch of Santa Monica Boulevard from
Ocean Avenue to Centinela Avenue experienced nine
severe injuries and one fatality. This Safety Study
analyzes 10 years of crash data up to December
2024. In July 2024, after receiving a grant from the
State of California, the City launched the Santa
Monica Boulevard Safety Study under the Take the
Friendly Road banner.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 3

1.2 STUDY FUNDING
The Study is funded through a grant from the
California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”)
Sustainable Communities Transportation Planning
Grant Program, along with a local match.

The City’s vision and the Study Team’s approach
included building on goals and recommendations
identified in prior planning efforts, targeted data
collection and analysis to assess issues along
Santa Monica Boulevard, and a robust community
engagement process to further identify issues
and potential recommendations. With the reliance
on data, analysis findings, and community input
and support, the Study Team has clearly identified
targeted short-term and long-term improvements.

The Study Team has also identified longer-term
improvements that will require subsequent design
and construction as additional funding becomes
available. This report includes a high-level cost
estimate for design and implementation, which will
assist the City in prioritizing improvements and
securing necessary future funding.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) May 2025
Santa Monica Blvd
S Broadway
Arizona Ave
Wilshire Blvd
Olympic Blvd
Colorado Ave
Exhibit 2
Focus Area
Legend
City Boundary
Focus Area (0.125mile Buffer)
LRSP Priority Streets
LRSP Priority Intersections
Source:
2022 Local Road Safety Plan
1 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 4

1.3 STUDY AREA
The study area includes the entirety of Santa
Monica Boulevard from Ocean Avenue to Centinela
Avenue, approximately 2.4 miles. As an arterial
roadway, Santa Monica Boulevard is one of the
major east-west corridors that carries vehicular
Figure 1. 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan Priority Streets and Intersections and transit traffic through the city. The corridor
is home to many types of commercial and
neighborhood services including libraries, medical
centers, schools, and many of the city’s auto
dealerships.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

2. POLICY & PLANNING CONTEXT

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 6
Existing City-adopted plans, policies, regulations,
standards, and best practices relating to mobility
and active transportation were reviewed to align
this Safety Study within the existing framework.

The following provides an overview of these efforts
as they relate to prioritizing investments in Santa
Monica. The recommended improvements in this
Safety Study complement, and/or are consistent
with these policies, plans, and standards.

PEDESTRIAN ACTION PLAN (2016)
The City adopted the Pedestrian Action Plan in 2016
which recognizes and celebrates walking as a core
part of Santa Monica’s identity and character, while
laying out a specific vision, standards, and priority
projects and programs to guide improvements
through 2031.

Proposed projects along Santa Monica Boulevard
were recommended and included improvements like
curb extensions, crosswalks, advanced stop lines,
direction ramps, and pedestrian oriented lights.

VISION ZERO PLAN (2017)
In 2017, the City of Santa Monica adopted Vision
Zero, aiming to eliminate fatal and severe injury
crashes on our streets by 2026, and establishing an
initiative to focus on three primary efforts:

1. Infrastructure Improvements: redesign streets
to increase safety, encourage multimodal
mobility, and reduce conflict points that lead to
traffic deaths and serious injuries.

2. Data: use data to prioritize locations in the
City where these types of incidents are more
common.

3. Community Engagement: promote campaigns
and events that bring communities together to
learn about Vision Zero, safe driving behavior,
and interventions that increase safety on our
streets.

Santa Monica Boulevard was identified as a priority
street with priority intersections at Ocean Avenue,
Lincoln Boulevard, Princeton Street and Cloverfield
Boulevard.

2.1 SUPPORTING PLANS & INITIATIVES
Vision Zero Plan (2017)
WILSHIRE SAFETY STUDY (2020)
Wilshire Boulevard was identified as a priority of the
City’s Vision Zero initiative to eliminate fatal and
severe injury crashes. In 2020, the City adopted the
Wilshire Boulevard Safety Study which took a deep
dive into safety concerns and enhancements along
the corridor.

The Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study follows
a similar project planning approach to the Wilshire
Safety Study project.

In 2023, the City began implementing Phase 1 of
the planned safety improvements, which include
installing flashing beacons at five intersections,
adding painted curb extensions with bollards
at fourteen intersections, introducing trafficcalming measures such as right-turn-only from unsignalized side streets, updating pavement
markings for bus zones, expanding loading zones,
and constructing a new traffic signal at Wilshire
Boulevard and 16th Street. In Phase 2, the City will
convert interim materials at seven intersections
into permanent capital improvements.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 7
BIKE ACTION PLAN (2011, AMENDED 2020)
In 2011, the City adopted the Bike Action Plan to
serve as a guide for Santa Monica to implement a
citywide bike network. In 2020, the City developed
an amendment for the Bike Action Plan which
introduces a citywide network of protected bike
lanes.

SANTA MONICA LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(2022)
Building on the Vision Zero approach, the City
refreshed the 2017 Plan with new data spanning
from 2015-2019. The refreshed Local Roadway
Safety Plan was released in 2022 and identifies the
highest priority intersections and corridors for
improvement, as well as recommended focus areas
to address some the primary causes of crashes.

The results of the 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan
(LRSP) identify segments of Santa Monica Boulevard
as a priority street, with key intersections 6th
Street, 15th Street, 16th Street, 18th Street, and
20th Street as priority intersections.

LAND USE & CIRCULATION ELEMENT (2010,
AMENDED 2023)
Originally adopted in 2010, and amended in 2023,
the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE)
outlines the vision for Santa Monica’s character,
neighborhoods, transportation systems, and
housing.

PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS AT SIX SCHOOLS
PROJECT (2024)
The City implemented pedestrian safety
improvements near six public schools throughout
the City. One of the schools included as part of this
project is McKinley Elementary School located on
Santa Monica Boulevard near Cloverfield Boulevard.

The project focused on critical infrastructure
improvements to address pedestrian safety
concerns and ensure compliance with the American
with Disabilities (ADA) standards. During the
analysis phase of the Santa Monica Boulevard
Safety Study in the Spring of 2025, roadway
improvements were constructed near McKinley
Elementary School on Santa Monica Boulevard to
emphasize the city’s ongoing commitment to Vision
Zero and Safety.

Two of the focus intersections analyzed in more
detail as part of this safety study (Chelsea
Avenue and 26th Street) are located near
McKinley Elementary School. The recommended
improvements further build upon these traffic
calming and pedestrian enhancements.

TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVES ON SANTA
MONICA BOULEVARD (2025-2028)
In Fall 2025, two coordinated initiatives launched
to enhance transit along Santa Monica Boulevard.

Caltrans began construction on the rehabilitation
of the road and the implementation of 1.4 miles of
designated bus priority lanes between Centinela
Avenue and I-405 in West LA. At the same time,
the Westside Cities Council of Governments
(WSCCOG) launched the Westside Quick-Build Bus
Infrastructure Program to gather community input
and conduct feasibility analyses for installing quickbuild bus infrastructure—specifically bus-only lanes—along three major corridors in the Westside
sub-region, including Santa Monica Boulevard from
Ocean Avenue to Moreno Drive in Los Angeles. The
project analysis began in late 2025 with the goal
of developing shovel-ready designs for corridor
segments that prove both feasible and supported
by the community. Many of the recommendations in
this study align with these initiatives and would not
prevent the addition of future transit improvements
from advancing if ultimately deemed feasible and
necessary.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) [ THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ]

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

3. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) The Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study Team
applied a robust community engagement process
and key tactics to reach a broad audience
of stakeholders and community members.

This included presentations to neighborhood
associations and commissions, a Pop-Up
Event (Touchpoint #1), a community walk audit
(Touchpoint #2), a community open-house
workshop (Touchpoint #3), branded banners,
meetings with key city stakeholder groups, and
a robust online presence with study updates. In
addition to the public outreach, the project team
also established a Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) consisting of representatives from SaMoDOT
Mobility Division, Traffic Management, Public Works,
Santa Monica Police Department, Santa Monica Fire
Department, and Big Blue Bus.

To help inform data collection and evaluation,
the Study Team conducted multiple rounds of
outreach events and meetings early in the process,
prior to the initial safety recommendations. Once
preliminary recommendations were developed,
the Study Team returned to neighborhood groups,
technical advisory groups, and commissions to
present more detailed safety findings and draft
recommendations for feedback and adjustment.

In October 2024, as part of the Santa Monica
Boulevard Safety Study, a three-week installation
was set up at the Downtown Santa Monica Public
Library. The installation coincided with the library’s
Halloween Trick-or-Treat event on October 31, 2024.

The goals of the installation were to:
• engage and educate the community about road
safety
• identify specific locations along the corridor for
desired improvements
• collect measurable data on community values
and preferences when it comes to road safety.

TOUCH POINT #1 - LIGHT UP THE NIGHT

3.1 APPROACH 3.2 STRATEGIES
Participants of all ages were invited to choose an
LED safety light in the color that represents the
type of improvement that they would like to see
more of along Santa Monica Boulevard. Participants
then used a sticker to indicate on a nearby map
where they’d like to see improvements. They
could also add comments and provide contact
information to stay informed about project updates
and events.

The Results
Out of a total of 59 votes, the most popular
improvement suggested by participants was
“Safe Crossings” with 18 votes. This was followed
closely by “Safe Vehicle Movements”, with a total
of 17 votes. The least popular improvement was
“Improved Sidewalks.”
Touchpoint #1 Participant Touchpoint #1 Participants

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Total = 208 Stickers Placed On The Map Throughout The Three Week Period Including Curb Extensions, Street Lighting, Pedestrian Refuge Islands,
Bus Lanes, And Signal Priority, Etc.

Figure 2. Light Up the Night Sticker Installation Results

SAFE CROSSINGS
56 STICKERS

SAFE VEHICLE MOVEMENTS
59 STICKERS

IMPROVED SIDEWALKS
47 STICKERS

SOMETHING ELSE
46 STICKERS
SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 11
Figure 2 indicates where stickers were placed on the
map (showing the closest cross street or mid-block
location along Santa Monica Boulevard) between
October 31st and November 21st. Stickers were
placed at almost every intersection. There were
more stickers placed along the western portion of
the corridor, between Ocean Avenue and Lincoln
Boulevard. There was an even spread between the
four categories, but the most popular category
was “Safer Vehicle Movements” (59 stickers).

Recommendations for “Something Else” included
“curb extensions,” “street lighting,” “pedestrian
refuge islands,” “bus lanes,” and “signal priority,”
among others. The intersection with the most
feedback was Lincoln Boulevard, with 17 stickers,
then Ocean Avenue, with 15 stickers. Following this,
2nd Street, 3rd Street, 4th Street, 6th Street, 12th
Street, and 20th Street all had between 10 and 14
stickers.

A detailed event summary is provided in Appendix A.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Figure 3. Walk Audit Route

BERGAMOT STATION

ARTS CENTER
7TH ST

LINCOLN BLVD
9TH ST
10TH ST11TH ST12TH ST

EUCLID ST
14TH ST15TH ST17TH ST19TH ST
21ST ST

CLOVERFIELD BLVD

PARK DRIVE
25TH ST
26TH ST

PRINCETON ST

HARVARD ST

YALE ST

STANFORD ST

BERKELEY ST

FRANKLIN ST

CENTINELA AVE

CROSSROADS

ELEMENTARY
16TH ST
18TH ST
20TH ST
23RD ST
26TH ST

CLOVERFIELD BLVD

START/FINISH

WEST GROUP EAST GROUP

SANTA MONICA BLVD

SELECTED WALK AUDIT STOP (WEST GROUP)

SELECTED WALK AUDIT STOP (EAST GROUP)
chELSEA AVE

WALK AUDIT STOP (EAST GROUP)

WALK AUDIT STOP (WEST GROUP)
SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 12
A community walk audit was held on February
22, 2025 starting from Providence Saint John’s
Medical Center. The walk audit was a communitybased assessment of the conditions along the street and allowed individuals to provide realtime feedback and observations of Santa Monica Boulevard. Seventeen members of the public
and key stakeholders walked a portion of Santa
Monica Boulevard to discuss safety concerns and
opportunities. The walk audit included residents,
students at McKinley Elementary, hospital
employees, and City staff.

The walk audit was facilitated in two
groups focusing on locations within ½
mile of the starting location (Providence
St. John’s Health Center) to make the
walk accessible to all ages:
• West Group stopped at 20th Street,
18th Street and 16th Street
• East Group stopped at Cloverfield
Boulevard, Chelsea Avenue, and 26th
Street
The goals of the walk audit were to:
• Gather feedback from the community about
the overall experience and “issue areas” along
Santa Monica Boulevard.
• Identify potential enhancements to improve the
experience for people walking, rolling, driving,
and taking transit.

Participants were assigned to an East or West
group and provided an associated “workbook.”
The front of the workbook provided space for
general reflections at each intersection along with
discussion questions. The back provided a checklist
of priorities for each intersection and a map for
sketching.

TOUCH POINT #2 - COMMUNITY WALK AUDIT A detailed event summary is provided in Appendix A.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) The Results
Based on the auditors’ discussion and notes from
the workbooks, several overall concerns and
safety priorities were identified for Santa Monica
Boulevard. Recommendations are summarized
below, organized by key themes:

Walk auditors highlighted crossing concerns for
pedestrians at many of the intersections visited.

Visibility challenges also result in cars pulling into
crosswalks to see oncoming traffic.

Consider: • Scramble crosswalks • Pedestrian refuge islands There were many concerns regarding high vehicle
speeds that create uncomfortable conditions
for pedestrians. Fast moving traffic also makes
waiting for the bus uncomfortable.

Consider: • Posted speeds and speed feedback signs • Curb extensions • Narrow vehicle lanes

DESIGN FOR SLOWER VEHICLE
SPEEDS

FURTHER SEPARATE CARS AND

PEDESTRIANS

IMPROVE SIGNAL TIMING

FOR PEDESTRIANS
The walk audit revealed that long wait times
at signalized intersections can lead to risky
pedestrian behavior, such as crossing without
a walk signal. Drivers also frequently attempt
right turns in front of pedestrians.

Consider: • Leading pedestrian intervals • Pedestrian walk signals A need for greater separation between
pedestrians and vehicle traffic was identified to
enhance safety and comfort while walking.

Consider: • Wider sidewalks • Buffers between the street and the sidewalk

SAFE CROSSINGS
Touchpoint #2 Participants

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 14
An open house was held at the Santa Monica
Family YMCA on September 6th, 2025, where
staff showcased draft conceptual designs for
14 intersections as well as draft corridor-wide
improvements. A total of 62 members of the public
attended the open house to discuss the designs
and provide feedback about the overall selected
treatments. We heard from a wide array of residents
including families, students, and City Council
members.

The goals of the event were to: • Gather feedback from the community about proposed designs and corridor-wide
improvements.
• Share information about the study and next
steps.

Participants were provided a “Route Map” for a
self-guided tour through 14 intersections. The map
provided space for reflections at each intersection,
with an option to mark whether they “liked the
design” or “had comments.” The back of the map
provided additional space to comment on corridorwide improvements.

The Results
The feedback received during the open house
provided strong support to the proposed location
specific improvements as well as the corridor-wide
enhancements.

TOUCH POINT #3 - OPEN HOUSE

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 15

ONLINE OUTREACH & MAPPING TOOL
For digital communication and outreach, the Study
Team set up a dedicated webpage on the City’s
website that was available for the duration of the
project. On the site, community members were
able to sign up for the Take the Friendly Road email
newsletter to receive notifications, project updates,
and provide location-specific comments on an
interactive city-wide map.

In addition to the project website, a map-based
tool allowed community members to drop a pin at
any location along the corridor to share thoughts
and provide feedback. The online mapping tool
launched in October 2024 during the “Light Up the
Night” event (Touchpoint #1) and was live through
April 2025 to provide a virtual component to the
in-person engagement activities. Participants
submitted comments and concerns about specific
locations along Santa Monica Boulevard categorized
by specific issues. In total, the Study Team gathered
and analyzed 349 comments that were submitted
through the project website. The full summary of
the comments received on the interactive-map is
available in Appendix A.

NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION PRESENTATIONS
The Study Team, led by the City, worked with
neighborhood associations within the study area,
including Mid-City Neighbors, Pico Neighborhood
Association, and the Downtown Santa Monica
business improvement district to identify the
community’s concerns, discuss preliminary crash
data, collect feedback, outline the timeline for the
study, and explain how to provide additional input.

TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
In addition to community stakeholders, staff met
with several City departments to discuss the initial
collision analysis and held a series of meetings to
identify operational and safety improvements. This
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisted of
representatives from the Mobility Division, Public
Works, Santa Monica Police Department, Santa
Monica Fire Department, and Big Blue Bus.

One of the workshops held with the TAC included
a technical Safety Walk Audit of Santa Monica
Boulevard on November 21st, 2024. The walk
audit examined corridor-wide safety, design,
and operational concerns. During the Walk Audit,
members of the TAC discussed those concerns and
conducted field observations at key intersections.

The full safety audit report is included as Appendix
B.

ADDITIONAL CORRIDOR OUTREACH
Throughout the life of this study, the project team
conducted additional outreach throughout the
community including:
• Door knocking at businesses along Santa
Monica Boulevard
• Mailing 10,000 post cards within 0.5 miles from
the corridor
• Pop-up tabling at DTSM farmer’s market,
Douglas Park, and McKinley Elementary School
for world heritage day and family literacy night

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) [ THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ]

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

4. SAFETY AUDIT & ANALYSIS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BLVD
LINCOLNBLVD14TH ST16TH ST

HIGHEST CRASH SEVERITY

PRIMARY COLLISION FACTORS
(46%)
(32%)
(22%)
(55%) 22%
(20%)
Top 3 locations with the on Santa Monica Blvd
83% of all crashes occur at intersections
17% (56%) (59%)
of all crashes occur at midblock
Bicycles & scooters account for
of all collisions and more than half
of all serious crash injuries

1. Auto Right of Way Violation

2. Speeding
For injury crashes involving pedestrians & bicyclists,
pedestrian & bicyclist
crashes occured at signalized intersections
Proceding movement for injury crashes
where pedestrians were in a crosswalk:
• vehicle turning left
• vehicle proceeding straight
• vehicle turning right
Pedestrian-involved injury crashes
occurring at night (including those under
street lighting) account for 22% of all
pedestrian-related injury crashes
that results in injury crashes at intersections

KEY CORRIDOR SAFETY STATISTICS
Safety Analysis Summary
SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 18
In 2022, the City developed a Local Roadway Safety
Plan (LRSP), which serves as an update to the 2017
Vision Zero Plan and analyzed citywide crash data
between 2015-2019. Through the crash analysis
under the LRSP, Santa Monica Boulevard accounted
for four of the top ten crash intersections. Building
on the citywide crash analysis conducted under the
LRSP, this Safety Study analyzes collisions along
Santa Monica Boulevard during the ten-year
period from 2015-2024.

This chapter provides a detailed assessment
along the corridor to see exactly where
crashes occurred and better understand
crash circumstances that can be addressed
through improvements. The full Safety Analysis
Memorandum is available in Appendix B.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Blvd Segments Speed Limits 85th Percentile Speeds Ocean Ave to Lincoln Blvd 25 mph 25 mph - 29 mph
Lincoln Blvd to Cloverfield Blvd 30 mph 30 mph - 34 mph Cloverfield Blvd to Centinela Ave 30 mph 35 mph - 49 mph SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 19
Table 1. Speed Limits vs. 85th Percentile Speeds
Santa Monica Boulevard is classified as a principal
arterial roadway that runs in the general east-west
direction between Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica
and Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood. The study area,
from Ocean Avenue to Centinela Avenue, is 2.4
miles long and has 20 signalized intersections (19
signalized intersections in City of Santa Monica and
one signalized intersection in City of Los Angeles),
13 two-way stop control intersections, and 21
alleys.

Santa Monica Boulevard has four travel lanes, two in
each direction, with intermittent turn lanes and onstreet metered parking. Lane widths are narrower near Ocean Avenue and downtown Santa Monica
and gradually widen toward Centinela Avenue. Block
spacing along the corridor averages about 320 feet
between intersections. Concrete sidewalks are
provided on both sides of the street throughout the
study area. The speed limit between Ocean Avenue
and Lincoln Boulevard is 25 mph and between
Lincoln Boulevard and Centinela Avenue it is 30 mph.

However, many drivers do not abide by speed limits
and travel at higher speeds as shown in Table 1.

Land uses along the corridor primarily consist of
commercial and office spaces and public facilities
such as libraries, hospitals, and schools. The
corridor is served by the Big Blue Bus and LA Metro
(Refer to Section 5.1 for additional discussion on
transit). While there are no bicycle facilities on
Santa Monica Boulevard, the following bicycle
routes intersect the corridor:
• Ocean Avenue – Bi-directional parking protected
bike lane on west side and northbound Class II
bike lane on east side
• 2nd Street – Northbound and southbound Class
II bike lanes
• 6th Street - Northbound and southbound Class
II bike lanes
• 7th Street - Northbound and southbound
Class II bike lanes, no bike lane approaching
intersection
• Lincoln Boulevard – Northbound and
southbound bike route
• 11th Street - Northbound and southbound Class
II bike lanes
• 14th Street - Northbound and southbound Class
II bike lanes
• 17th Street - Northbound and southbound Class
IV buffered bike lanes with green bike crossing
pavement markings across the intersection
• Yale Street – Northbound and southbound bike
route

4.1 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Source: 2024 Citywide Speed Survey

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 20

4.2 CRASH ANALYSIS
This section presents the results of the crash
analysis along Santa Monica Boulevard from
Ocean Avenue to Centinela Avenue. The goal of
this analysis is to identify where, when, and why
crashes occur, with a specific focus on patterns
related to fatal and serious injury crashes.

The analysis is based on data from CrossRoads
(an online collision database used by police
departments and public works agencies) provided
by the City of Santa Monica, and include crashes
that took place between Jan 1, 2015 and Dec 31,
2024.

CRASH TRENDS
During 2015-2024, 435 injury crashes and 401
Property Damage Only crashes were recorded
along the study corridor. Figure 4 illustrates the
number of crashes and their distribution by injury
severity. Notably, about half of the crashes were
reported as property damage only. Visible injuries
and complaints of pain account for 48% of the total,
while severe injuries and fatalities account for the
remaining 3%.

In the analysis, “Property Damage Only” crashes
are included in the crash trends and intersection
maps but are excluded from the analysis, aiming
at identifying specific patterns of injury crashes
because there is a significant difference between
PDO and injury crash attributes.

Total crashes per year reached a high point in 2018.

Crashes significantly decreased during the COVID-19
pandemic beginning in early 2020 but gradually
increased again after 2022. The increase has been
more pronounced for severe crashes, with 17 severe
crashes from 2022- 2024. During the 10-year period
one fatal crash was observed in 2017.
120
Property Damage Only
Severe Injury
Fatal
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain

48.0%

27.9%

20.5%

3.6%0.1%
Figure 4. Total crashes by injury level
Figure 4. Total Crashes by Injury Level
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal 2015 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2016
Number of Crashes
Property Damage Only
Severe Injury
Fatal
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain

48.0%

27.9%

20.5%

3.6%0.1%
Crash Year
Figure 4. Total crashes by injury lev
Figure 5. Annual Crashes by Injury Level

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Figure 6. Age distribution of People Involved in Injury Crashes Figure 7. Crashes by Mode and Severity
0 5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
12%
8%
18%
15%
13%
14%
10%
9%
1%
16%
24%
17%
16%
13%
7%
6%
Population in Santa Monica City (n=
People involved in crashes (n-625)
0-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
%00
%00
People involved in crashes (n=625) Population in Santa Monica City (n=91,500) 0 20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Scooter
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Motor Vehicle
All Crashes Property Damage Only Minor Injury Fatal/Severe Injury ALL CRASHES PROPERTY DAMGE ONLY MINOR INJURY FATAL/SEVERE INJURY Motor Vehicle Bicycle
Pedestrian Scooter
Percentage of people/population
Age Category
Figure 6Age Distribution of People Involved in Injury Crashes Figure 7. crashes by mode and severity
Note: “Minor Injury” category includes Other
Visible Injury and Complaint of Pain
0 5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
12%
8%
18%
15%
1%
16%
24%
17%
16 0-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 4
People involved in crashes (n=625) Popula
0 20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sc
Ped
Bic
Mo
All Crashes Property Damage Only Minor Injury Fatal/Severe Injury ALL CRASHES PROPERTY DAMGE ONLY MINOR INJURY FATAL/SEVERE INJURY Motor Vehicle Bicycle
Pedestrian Scooter
Percentage of people/population
Age Category
SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 21
WHO IS INVOLVED IN CRASHES?
Figure 6 highlights that the two most common age
groups for people involved in crashes are between
26–35 and 36–45, accounting for 24% and 17%
of those involved, respectively. The teal bars in
Figure 6 compare the age distribution of Santa
Monica residents. Notably, the 16–25 age group is
significantly overrepresented in crashes, making
up 16% of those involved, despite only comprising
8% of the city’s population. Similarly, the 26–35
age group is overrepresented by 6 percentage
points. Children aged 0–15 years represent only 4
individuals (0.6%) of those involved. As explained in
the following section, most (822) crashes involve
at least one person who is driving a vehicle or
motorcycle.

WHAT TYPES OF CRASHES ARE OCCURRING?
The crash mode is categorized based on the
non-motor vehicle party involved. For example, a
motor vehicle crash involves only automobiles, a
pedestrian crash involves a pedestrian and a motor
vehicle, and a bicycle crash involves a bicyclist
and a motor vehicle. The data also includes two
crashes involving only a bicyclist and a pedestrian;
these were categorized under the pedestrian
mode to streamline the analysis. Figure 7 shows
the distribution of crash modes by injury level
(Fatal/Serious Injury include one fatality during
the period of analysis). Nearly 81% of all crashes
involve only motor vehicles. However, when
examining fatal and serious injury crashes, motor
vehicle crashes account for 45%, nearly half their
share in all crashes. Conversely, pedestrians are
overrepresented in serious injury crashes, making
up 29% of such incidents compared to 11% in all
crashes. Bicycle and scooter crashes are also
overrepresented in serious injury crashes (55%)
compared to all crashes (20%).

Injury severity and crash type can also vary
depending on whether the crash occurred at
an intersection or a midblock location. Figure 8
compares the proportion of crashes at intersections
and midblock, by injury severity. Most crashes along
Santa Monica Boulevard occur at intersections
with other streets (77%), while only 6% take place
at intersections with alleys. In addition, no fatal
or severe injury crashes were recorded at alley
intersections.

Since alley crashes make up a small proportion
of total crashes and do not contribute to fatal
or serious injuries, the remainder of this report
consolidates alley and street intersection crashes
into a single intersection category.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Figure 8. Intersection and Midblock Crashes by
Severity
Figure 9. Crash Concentration on Santa Monica Boulevard 0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Servere Injury
Minor Injury
Damage Only
All Crashes ALL CRASHES

PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY

MINOR INJURY

FATAL/SEVERE INJURY
Midblock
Intersection - Street
Intersection - Alley
Figure 8. Intersection and midblock crashes by injury level SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 22
WHERE ARE CRASHES OCCURRING?
Figure 9 illustrates the concentration of crashes
(PDO and Injury) along the study corridor using a
heatmap that clusters the 797 crashes based on
proximity. This number is slightly lower than the
836 total crashes presented in previous sections,
as some crashes lacked sufficient data for locating
and were therefore excluded from the map. The
hotspots highlight areas with a higher density
of crashes near each other. This visualization is
intended to provide an overview and identify areas
with high crash history for further investigation.

The heatmap above identifies the following
locations with high crash history frequency: • At the intersection with 4th Street. • At the intersection with Lincoln Boulevard. • Between 14th and 16th Streets. • At the intersection with 20th Street. • At the intersection with 26th Street.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Figure 10. Intersection and Midblock Injury Crashes
by Crash Mode
Figure 11. Crash Injury Level by Location Type
Figure 12. Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Scooter Injury Crashes by Location Type Motor Vehicle Bicycle
Pedestrian
Fatal/Severe Injury
Property Damage Only
Scooter Minor Injury
0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120
Scooter
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Motor Vehicle
Midblock
Intersection
0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Midblock
Signalized
Unsignalized
Unsignalized Signalized Midblock
34% 56%
10%
37% 59%
4%
36%
18%
45%
Figure 12. Pedestrian and bicyclists injury crashes by location type Figure 10. Intersection and midblock injury crashes by crash mode Figure 11. Crash Injury level by location type Motor Vehicle Bicycle
Pedestrian
Fatal/Severe Injury
Property Damage Only
Scooter Minor Injury
0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120
Scooter
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Motor Vehicle
Midblock
Intersection
0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Midblock
Signalized
Unsignalized
Unsignalized Signalized Midblock
34% 56%
10%
37% 59%
4%
36%
18%
45%
Figure 12. Pedestrian and bicyclists injury crashes by location type Figure 10. Intersection and midblock injury crashes by crash mode Figure 11. Crash Injury level by location type Motor Vehicle Bicycle
Pedestrian
Fatal/Severe Injury
Property Damage Only
Scooter Minor Injury
0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120
Scooter
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Motor Vehicle
Midblock
Intersection
0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Midblock
Signalized
Unsignalized
Unsignalized Signalized Midblock
34% 56%
10%
37% 59%
4%
36%
18%
45%
Figure 12. Pedestrian and bicyclists injury crashes by location type Figure 10. Intersection and midblock injury crashes by crash mode Figure 11. Crash Injury level by location type SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 23
Figure 10 shows the distribution of injury crash
modes at intersections and midblock. Motor vehicle
crashes make up the majority at both location
types, nonetheless the share of motor vehicle
crashes at intersections (65%) is less than at
midblock (72%).

Figure 11 shows the distribution of crash types
across different location types. Crashes occur most
frequently at signalized intersections, and injury
severity is highest at unsignalized intersections.

Figure 12 shows the distribution of injury crashes
that involve pedestrians and bicyclists at different
location types. Many of these crashes (56-59%)
occur at signalized intersections. Bicyclist crashes
(37%) and pedestrian crashes (34%) occur at
about the same rate at unsignalized intersections.

Conversely, pedestrian crashes (10%) are more
common at midblock than bicyclist crashes (4%).

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Figure 13. Crashes by Time of Day by Severity
Figure 14. Crashes by Injury Level and Lighting Conditions 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 Minor Injury
Fatal/Serious Injury
12:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM
9:00 PM
10:00 PM
11:00 PM
0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Fatal/Severe Injury
Minor Injury
Property Damage Only
Daylight Dusk-Dawn
Minor Injury Fatal/Severe Injury
Dark-Streetlights Dark-No Streetlights
Number of Crashes
Time of Day
Figure 13. Crashes by Time of Day by Severity, 2015-2024 Figure 14. Crash Injury level by location type SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 24 WHEN ARE CRASHES OCCURRING?
This section examines seasonality of crashes and
lighting. Figure 13 illustrates how the number of
crashes increases throughout the day, peaking
between 5 pm and 6 pm.

Seasonal changes affect lighting conditions, with
daylight hours being shorter in the winter. Lighting
availability is especially important for pedestrian
and bicycle visibility, when streetlights may be their
only source of lighting.

Figure 14 shows the distribution of lighting
conditions in crashes across different injury levels.

Most property damage only (PDO) and minor injury
crashes occur during daylight, with only a small
proportion happening at dusk or dawn. However,
nearly one-quarter of PDO crashes and one-fifth
of minor injury crashes occur in the dark, under
the presence of street lighting. The proportion of
fatal and serious injury crashes occurring in the
dark with street lighting is significantly higher,
accounting for 45% of these crashes under such
lighting conditions. The share of crashes occurring
at dusk or dawn is also higher for fatal and serious
injuries compared to the other two categories. This
suggests that the lack of natural daylight may be
an underlying cause of fatal and serious injuries
crashes.
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 Minor Injury
Fatal/Serious Injury
12:00 AM
1:00 AM
2:00 AM
3:00 AM
4:00 AM
5:00 AM
6:00 AM
7:00 AM
8:00 AM
9:00 AM
10:00AM
11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM
2:00 PM
3:00 PM
4:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
7:00 PM
8:00 PM
9:00 PM
10:00 PM
11:00 PM
0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Fatal/Severe Injury
Minor Injury
Property Damage Only
Daylight Dusk-Dawn
Minor Injury Fatal/Severe Injury
Dark-Streetlights Dark-No Streetlights
Number of Crashes
Time of Day
Figure 13. Crashes by Time of Day by Severity, 2015-2024 Figure 14. Crash Injury level by location type

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Figure 16. Speed-Related Crashes by Injury Level
Figure 17. Impairment-Related Crashes by Injury Level
Figure 15. Primary Collision Factors in Injury Crashes
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Midb
Inter
Other Hazardous Movement
Improper Turning
Traic Signals and Signs
Unsafe Speed
Auto Right of Way Violation
0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Speed
Othe
Fatal/Serious Injury
Minor Injury
Property Damage Only
Other Factors Speeding
Other Factors Impairment
0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Impa
Othe
Fatal/Serious Injury
Minor Injury
Property Damage Only
Intersection Midblock
Fi
In
Fi
in
Fi
by
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Midb
Inters
Other Hazardous Movement
Improper Turning
Traic Signals and Signs
Unsafe Speed
Auto Right of Way Violation
0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Speed
Other
Fatal/Serious Injury
Minor Injury
Property Damage Only
Other Factors Speeding
Other Factors Impairment
0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Impa
Othe
Fatal/Serious Injury
Minor Injury
Property Damage Only
Intersection Midblock
Fi
In
Fi
in
Fi
by
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Midblo
Interse
Other Hazardous Movement
Improper Turning
Traic Signals and Signs
Unsafe Speed
Auto Right of Way Violation
0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Speed
Other
Fatal/Serious Injury
Minor Injury
Property Damage Only
Other Factors Speeding
Other Factors Impairment
0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Impai
Other
Fatal/Serious Injury
Minor Injury
Property Damage Only
Intersection Midblock
Fig
Inj
Fig
inj
Fig
by
SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 25
WHY ARE CRASHES OCCURRING?
Police Crash reports provide details about the
primary and contributing factors that caused a
crash, and the sobriety of each party involved.

This analysis examines the proportion of crashes
where speed, impairment, and/or inattention was
identified either as the primary collision factor or
contributing factor when applicable.

Failure to yield and speeding are the top two
primary collision factors that result in injury
crashes at intersections. Speeding and improper
turning are top collision factors at midblock
locations. Improvements shall address these crash
factors. (see Figure 15)
Figure 16 presents speed-related crashes by injury
level. A crash was categorized as speed-related
if the primary collision factor was identified as
“unsafe speed.” Among the 31 serious injury
crashes, 3% were associated with speeding, a lower
proportion compared to minor injury crashes and
property damage only. This trend is atypical, as
most crash analyses show a positive correlation
between speed and injury severity.

Figure 17 shows impairment-related crashes by
injury level. A crash was considered impairmentrelated if any party “Had Been Drinking (HBD) - Under Influence” or “Under Drug Influence”; or if
the crash primary collision factor was recorded as
“Driving Under Influence.” Out of the 836 crashes
analyzed, 48 (5%) were related to impairment.

The proportion of crashes involving impairment is
highest in property damage (7%) and fatal/serious
injury crashes (6%).

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

COLLISIONS INVOLVING PEOPLE WALKING IN THE CROSSWALK
Pedestrian crashes are overrepresented in serious injury crashes. Appropriate safety measures should be explored during the recommendation phase to increase driver awareness of pedestrians and compliance with yielding laws.

EXCESSIVE SPEED
Excessive speed has been identified as one of the top three collision factors in reported crashes. Speeding is more prevalent in the areas between Cloverfield Boulevard and Centinela Avenue where many drivers were reported traveling 5 to 15 mph over the posted speed limit. Safety walk audit participants also shared concerns about higher vehicle speeds in the eastern portion of Santa Monica Boulevard due to wider lanes and larger block spacing, which can encourage speeding. Evaluate appropriate traffic calming measures approaching intersections to reduce injury collisions of all types.

EXCESSIVE DISTANCE BETWEEN MARKED CROSSWALKS
Large block spacing causes many pedestrians to walk long distances to access crosswalks, causing some people to opt for a shorter route and potentially crossing at unexpected locations.

SIDE STREET CONFLICTS
A significant number of crashes involve vehicles making left turns while pedestrians are crossing in crosswalks.

During the safety walk audit, numerous drivers were observed completing their left turns when the traffic signal turned yellow or red. The lack of dedicated turning phases and limited opportunities to turn during permissive phases causes drivers to focus on completing their turns and failing to notice pedestrians crossing the street. For signalized intersections, consider eliminating permissive phases at high pedestrian volumes areas. At unsignalized intersections with side streets, a similar threat is posed by drivers turning off the boulevard where left turn prohibitions can be considered.

Additionally, it is difficult for drivers traveling straight across the boulevard from side streets to find acceptable gaps, resulting in the threat of broadside collisions. Consider implementing right turn only restrictions where the predominant crash type is broadside and/or the resulting out of direction travel impacts are low.

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 26
01 02
03 04

KEY SAFETY CONCERNS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

5. TRAFFIC OPERATIONS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 28
As part of the Safety Study, an analysis was
conducted of transit operations along Santa Monica
Boulevard between Ocean Avenue and Centinela
Avenue. Santa Monica Boulevard is served by Big
Blue Bus Routes 1 and Rapid Route 10, as well as L.A.

Metro Route 4 with numerous other intersecting
routes.

A detailed transit analysis can be found in Appendix
B.

TRANSIT DELAY
Bus operations and transit rider connections help
us understand where street safety improvements
might overlap for the benefit of more reliable transit
travel times. As part of this study, transit delay was
calculated based on stop-to-stop average speed for
Big Blue Bus Route 1 along the study corridor, using
weekday trips collected in October 2024.

Morning Peak – For the eastbound direction, the
segment between 22nd Street and Cloverfield
Boulevard experienced slower travel speeds due to
congestion pinch points, and the segment between
4th Street and 6th Street experienced slower travel
speeds due to the location of the transit map where
many busses stop queue or change drivers. In
the westbound direction, the segments between
Cloverfield and 20th Street as well as between Yale
Street and 26th Street experience the slowest travel
speeds.

Evening Peak – For the eastbound direction, the segments from 22nd Street to Cloverfield Boulevard and 4th Street to 6th Street are the slowest, with travel speeds dropping below 7 mph and reaching as low as 4 mph. The segments from 20th Street to 22nd Street and 6th Street to Lincoln Boulevard also experienced slow travel speeds in the evening. For the westbound direction, buses traveling into Santa Monica during the afternoon peak period maintain steady speeds.

Ocean Avenue
• Big Blue Route 9
• LA Metro Route 134
2nd Street
• Big Blue Bus Route 8
• LA Metro Route 33
4th Street
• Big Blue Bus Route 1
• Big Blue Bus Route 2
• Big Blue Bus Route 3
• Big Blue Bus Route 8
• Big Blue Bus Route 9
• Big Blue Bus Rapid 10
• Big Blue Bus Route 18
• Big Blue Bus Route 43
• LA Metro Route 4
• LA Metro Route 20
• LA Metro Route 134
• LA Metro Route 720
6th Street
• Big Blue Bus Route 1
• Big Blue Bus Route 3
• Big Blue Bus Route 5
• Big Blue Bus Route 7
• Big Blue Bus Route 8
• Big Blue Bus Rapid 10
• Big Blue Bus Route 18
• LA Metro Route 4
7th Street
• Big Blue Bus Route 7
• Big Blue Bus Route 8
Lincoln Boulevard
• Big Blue Bus Route 18
• LA Metro Route 4
14th Street
• Big Blue Bus Route 41
• LA Metro Route 4
20th Street
• Big Blue Bus Route 41
• LA Metro Route 4
26th Street
• Big Blue Bus Route 43
• LA Metro Route 4
Centinela Avenue
• Big Blue Bus Route 16

TRANSIT ROUTES CROSSING SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD

5.1 TRANSIT OPERATIONS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 29

TRANSIT RIDERSHIP
Transit activity (boardings and alightings) by stop
for the eastbound and westbound directions were
analyzed for Big Blue Bus routes. In the eastbound
direction the highest activity of average daily
boardings/alightings, from west to east, occurred
at 4th Street (366), 6th Street (174) 20th Street (99)
and 26th Street (120). In the westbound direction
the highest activity, from east to west, 26th Street
(106), 20th Street (90) and 6th Street (255).

For the Metro Route 4, which has wider stop
spacing and fewer stops along Santa Monica
Boulevard, the highest activity occurs at 4th Street
with approximately 638 average daily boardings
and alightings for both eastbound and westbound
directions. The stops at 4th and 6th Streets are
located within the Downtown Transit Mall and
expected to have more boardings and alightings.

In addition to the community feedback and
the detailed crash analysis, the recommended
improvements for Santa Monica Boulevard were
also informed by a detailed level of service (LOS)
operations analysis that evaluated each of the
signalized and unsignalized intersections along
the corridor. While this safety study focuses on
improvements that address documented crash
patterns, vehicular operations should also be
considered in conjunction with the crash data to
ensure the proposed safety measures do not create
excessive congestion or operational deficiencies,
which could potentially introduce new challenges or
negatively impact overall roadway performance.

The traffic operations analysis evaluated current
intersection performance using recent traffic
counts and projected traffic volumes for the year
2050. This established a baseline for existing
conditions, including the current design and signal
timing. The results provide the level of service
(LOS), a measure of traffic flow, which is used to
compare the intersection’s current performance
with its expected performance under the proposed
improvements.

Level of Service (LOS) is commonly used as a
measure of the operational performance of an
intersection based on average vehicular delay. The
intersection analysis conforms to Highway Capacity
Manual operational analysis methodology, which is
a widely accepted methodology and consistent with
methodology used by the City of Santa Monica.

Provided in Appendix C are the intersection
performance tables that compare baseline
operations to the “with improvement” scenario
for 2025 existing condition and the Future Year
2050 forecast conditions. As shown in the tables
in Appendix C, with the implementation of the
proposed improvements, operations along the
corridor are projected to improve compared to
the existing condition. In addition to the location
specific improvements at the focus intersections,
the operations analysis also incorporates
corridor-wide traffic signal enhancements and
synchronization between adjacent intersections.

Refer to Section 6.2 for more discussion on this
type of treatment.

5.2 VEHICULAR OPERATIONS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) [ THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ]

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY
This chapter outlines the potential treatments that
could be implemented on Santa Monica Boulevard
to reduce crashes and improve the multimodal
environment for all users. These recommended
improvements have been developed throughout
the outreach process based on meaningful input
and feedback received from the community and
the technical advisory committee. They have also
been informed and influenced by the data driven
technical analysis including the detailed safety
audit, crash analysis, and the traffic operations
analysis.

These improvements have been categorized into
short-term (phase 1) and long-term (phase 2)
improvements depending on how complicated
the projects are, ease of implementation, and
estimated costs.

As further explored in Chapter 7: Next Steps,
implementation of these potential improvements
will depend on available funding, coordination with
other stakeholders, feasibility and engineering
complexity. This plan is intended to provide
guidance and flexibility based on project-specific
conditions and will serve as a foundational
reference to guide future coordination, funding
requests, and infrastructure planning efforts.

Short Term
Includes quick wins, minor infrastructure upgrades, signage and striping enhancements (etc.) These improvements could be implemented within the next two years.

Long Term
Includes projects with moderate investments requiring additional funding, planning, design, or potential policy modifications. These improvements could be implemented within the next 3 to 10 years.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 33
In response to numerous public comments and
observed safety conditions at multiple two-way
stop intersections, implementation of right-turn
only treatments are recommended at all 2-way,
stop-controlled side streets along Santa Monica
Boulevard. This treatment is a low cost option
utilizing striping, signing, and direction delineators
to prohibit left-turns and force vehicles to turn
right from the side streets onto Santa Monica
Boulevard. Limiting the side streets to right-turn
only at these unsignalized intersections will
allow traffic on Santa Monica Boulevard to flow
better as well as reduce conflicts and motorist
confusion. These treatments have been previously
implemented throughout the City, including multiple
locations on Wilshire Boulevard, and have reduced
conflicts at intersections
Right-Turn Only from Side Street
One of the most resounding comments received
throughout the community engagement process
was the desire to easily cross Santa Monica
Boulevard on foot. Installing new Rectangular
Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) is recommended
at six unsignalized intersections, in addition to
upgrading the existing six RRFB intersections along
Santa Monica Boulevard. The RRFB is a pedestrian
activated flashing light system used at crosswalks
to alert drivers that they must yield to people who
are crossing (or about to cross) the street. An
RRFB is a crossing treatment that greatly improves
pedestrian safety and driver yielding rates at
crosswalks.

The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) Guide
to Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled
Crossing Locations endorses RRFBs as a proven
safety countermeasure and recommends combining
RRFBs with high visibility crosswalks, medians and/
or curb extensions where feasible for additional
enhancements to the crossing environment. The
FHWA notes that RRFBs can reduce crashes up
to 47% for pedestrian crashes, and can increase
motorist yielding rates up to 98%. To further
improve RRFB visibility at the 12 intersections, mast
arms are recommended to place flashing beacons
above travel lanes.

6.1 SAFETY TREATMENT OPTIONS

RIGHT-TURN ONLY ON SIDE STREETS

RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING

BEACONS (RRFB)
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB)
The safety treatment recommendations listed
below have been applied to other areas of Santa
Monica and have varying crash reduction factors,
an indication of how many crashes a treatment is
expected to reduce if installed.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 34
Leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) give pedestrians
a “head start” to cross a signalized intersection
several seconds before motorists can legally
proceed through the intersection. LPIs typically last
at least three seconds but can range depending
on intersection context. A LPI treatment allows
pedestrians to establish themselves in the
crosswalk and reinforces their right-of-way, thus
improving crossing visibility and reducing crashes.

Based on feedback from the community and
other stakeholders, LPI’s are recommended at all
signalized intersections where there is not an
existing or recommended pedestrian scramble.

A pedestrian scramble crossing, also known as
an all-pedestrian crossing is a dedicated signal
phase where all vehicular movements receive a
red light and pedestrians are allowed to cross in
every direction, including diagonally across the
intersection. This treatment improves pedestrian
safety by eliminating conflicts with turning vehicles
and reduces the need for multiple crossings by
allowing pedestrians to navigate directly from
one corner to another. To further enhance this
treatment, it would be combined with “No Right On
Red” restrictions to prevent vehicles from turning
right during the pedestrian phase.

Pedestrian scrambles already exist at 2nd Street
and 4th Street and are recommended to be installed
at 6th Street and 7th Street.

LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVALS EXCLUSIVE PEDESTRIAN PHASE (SCRAMBLE) Leading Pedestrian Intervals
Pedestrian Scramble

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 35
Many of the signalized intersections along the
Santa Monica Boulevard corridor utilize permissive
left-turn phasing in the east-west direction from
Santa Monica Boulevard to the minor streets. This
means that drivers attempting to make a left-turn
movement must yield to oncoming traffic from the
opposing direction and attempt to complete their
maneuver between gaps in traffic. Often times
this movement is also made concurrently with the
conflicting pedestrian crossings. The analysis of
crash data indicates this left-turn operations at
signalized intersections are likely to contribute to
left-turn crashes.

During the Safety Walk Audit with the Technical
Advisory Committee as well as the Community
Walk Audit with members of the public, there were
several observations that vehicles were stuck
in the middle of a signalized intersection during
the permissive left-turn phase without adequate
gaps in opposing traffic complete their turn. In
addition, vehicles would attempt unsafe left-turn
movements during the yellow and all-red phase in
order to avoid sitting through another whole cycle.

The conversion from permissive phasing to a
protected left-turn phasing operations would
provided a separate dedicated portion of the traffic
signal cycle for left-turning vehicles only without
conflicting movements from other directions. By
Protected Left-Turn Phasing
It improves comfort by providing a buffer between
pedestrians and vehicles and can slow speeds due
to narrowing of lanes, especially near crosswalks.

Pedestrian refuge islands are recommended at the
following locations:
• Chelsea Avenue
• Princeton Street
• Harvard Street
• Stanford Street
• Franklin Street

RAISED LANDSCAPED MEDIANS
Landscaped medians enhance operations by
separating opposing traffic, reducing vehicular
speeds and reducing pedestrian crossing distance
by creating a pedestrian refuge island. Landscaped
medians will physically constrain left turns
onto Santa Monica Boulevard from side streets.

Native plantings may be used to minimize water
consumption and maintenance needs and enhance
the corridor’s sense of place.
removing the conflicts between other movements
as well as pedestrian crossings, protected leftturn phasing operations enhances safety for all roadway users by reducing the likelihood of leftturn crashes, improving predictability at signalized intersections, and providing clearer separation
between vehicle and pedestrian movements.

Protected left-turn phasing is recommended at the
following locations:
• Lincoln Boulevard
• 11th Street
• 20th Street

PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND
Pedestrian refuge islands are provided at crossing
locations and are intended to reduce a pedestrian’s
exposure to traffic. This is even more important
on multilane roadways such as Santa Monica
Boulevard.

PROTECTED LEFT-TURN PHASING
Landscaped Median with Pedestrian Refuge
Island

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 36
Hardened centerlines are raised vertical elements
within the roadway along the centerline of an
intersection approach that extends partially
past the limit line to narrow the path of travel for
left turning vehicles. By physically constraining
the left turns, drivers are forced to make
slower, tighter turns. When combined with
right-turn only treatments on the side-streets,
these also discourage wrong-way movements
further enforcing the left-turn restrictions onto
Santa Monica Boulevard. These treatments are
recommended at:
• 9th Street
• 10th Street
• 12th Street
• 15th Street
• 16th Street
• 18th Street
• 19th Street
• Euclid Street
A curb extension, also known as a bulb-out,
is a traffic calming measure that widens the
sidewalk for a short distance and extends the
curb space at the corner of an intersection. This
treatment enhances visibility between drivers and
pedestrians, slows vehicle speeds, and shortens
the overall crossing distance for pedestrians. They
may be implemented on the major street, the
minor street, or both. Additional considerations
need to be given to curb extensions as they may
affect drainage, catch basins, and the flow of
stormwater. Curb extensions can also impact truck
turning maneuvers, especially large vehicles such
as delivery trucks, emergency vehicles, and buses
trying to navigate through the intersection. As curb
extensions physically narrow the roadway, they
are generally incompatible with bus queue jump
lanes, however they can be extended to include
nearby transit stops and provide wider sidewalks for
boarding/alighting.

Curb extensions are recommended at:
• 6th Street (with extended bus boarding)
• Lincoln Boulevard (with extended bus boarding)
• 9th Street
• 10th Street
• 12th Street
• 15th Street
• 16th Street
• 18th Street
• 19th Street
• 26th Street (with extended bus boarding)
• Euclid Street

HARDENED CENTERLINES CURB EXTENSIONS / BULB-OUTS
Hardened Centerlines
Curb Extensions / Bulb-Outs

LANE WIDTH REDUCTION
Narrowing lane widths on arterials and collectors
can be an effective measure to reduce both speed
and the number of collisions. Narrowing lane widths
along Santa Monica Boulevard, where feasible, can
encourage drivers to drive slower.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 37
One of the primary goals of this Study is to enhance
accessibility for all, especially pedestrians with
disabilities. With the implementation of the
recommended improvements, it is important to
ensure that all facilities are ADA compliant. This
includes meeting or exceeding the standards
outlined in the Public Right-of-Way Accessibility
Guidelines (PROWAG), such as sufficient access
routes (i.e. sidewalk widths), detectable warning
surfaces at all curb ramps (i.e truncated domes),
accommodations at signal crossings (audible
crossings and pedestrian push-buttons), etc.

Many site-specific recommendations include
modifications to the curb return and reconstruction
of curb ramps which will be designed to the
appropriate ADA requirements.

While Santa Monica Boulevard is not classified
as a dedicated bicycle corridor, there are several
intersecting north-south connections to existing
facilities as well as future priority connections
as outlined in the Bike Action Plan. Feedback
received from the community identified a desire
for additional bicycle enhancements to improve
cyclist comfort as they cross Santa Monica
Boulevard. This includes conflict striping through
the intersection at 7th Street, 11th Street, 14th
Street, Chelsea Avenue, and Yale Street. In addition,
bike boxes are proposed on the minor approaches
at 6th Street to provide a designated staging area
at the traffic signal ahead of the vehicle stop
bar which allows cyclists to bypass the vehicular
queue. These treatments increase cyclist visibility,
driver awareness, and encourage bicycle activity
along these intersecting cross streets, providing
connections to parallel bicycle routes.

Relocating bus stops from the near side to the far
side of the intersection can enhance passenger
visibility at the crosswalk and improve service
reliability by reducing signal delay. As referenced in
the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide, far-side stops
allow pedestrians to cross behind the bus which
improves visibility. On multi-lane roadways, far-side
stops also make pedestrians more visible to drivers
waiting at traffic signals and can reduce conflicts
with right-turning vehicles.

Through coordination with City Staff and other
stakeholders, far-side bus stop relocations are
recommended where feasible based on roadway
geometry, curb-to-curb widths, and other
considerations. These locations include:
• 6th Street (eastbound)
• 11th Street (eastbound)
• 14th Street (eastbound)
• Berkeley Street (eastbound)
Bus queue jump treatments allow buses to advance
through an intersection to a far-side stop from the
near-side right-turn lane, minimizing signal delay
for buses. The benefits of queue jump lanes are
that they can be implemented for short sections
ahead of the intersection rather than providing
a continuous bus lane. Queue jump lanes require
some curbside space to bypass traffic at signalized
locations so that buses can “jump” ahead of
queued vehicles.

Through coordination with City Staff and other
stakeholders, bus queue jumps are recommended
where feasible based on roadway geometry,
curb-to-curb widths, parking impacts, and
other considerations. This treatment may also
be combined with far-side bus stop relocations.

Identified locations for bus queue jump lanes
include:
• Lincoln Boulevard (westbound)
• 26th Street (westbound)

ADA ENHANCEMENTS ENHANCED NORTH-SOUTH BIKE CONNECTIONS

FAR-SIDE BUS STOP RELOCATION

BUS QUEUE JUMP LANES
Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS)
Bus Queue Jump Lanes

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 38
As part of the traffic operations analysis, the
project team evaluated signal timing at each
signalized intersection along the corridor (Refer to
Appendix C). This assessment verified the feasibility
of recommended improvements and examined their
impact on vehicular operations. A key component
of the signal timing evaluation was signal
synchronization, aimed at pacing traffic flows while
reducing delays. This is particularly important for
the segment of Santa Monica Boulevard between
20th Street and 26th Street, which experiences
a significant level of congestion during the peak
morning and evening periods, which can cause
driver frustration and unpredictable driver behavior.

In order to optimize synchronization and maximize
the efficiency of traffic signals, upgrades to traffic
signal equipment may be necessary to implement
the most state-of-the-art technology. Since
buses operate within the general flow of traffic,
the analysis also provides insight into transit
performance along the corridor; however the
analysis does not account for bus queue jumps or
During the field observations, the project team
identified faded roadway striping along the length
of the corridor that is in need of refreshing. As
recommended improvements are implemented
at specific locations along the corridor, roadway
striping will be updated to reflect the appropriate
treatments. In addition, where feasible, travel lane
widths should be standardized along the corridor.

Reducing travel lane widths creates visual cues
for slower driving, reducing vehicle speeds, and
calming traffic.

Similarly, street signage should be consistent and
upgraded throughout the corridor.

In addition, in order to provide a more consistent
experience for drivers along the corridor, on-street
parking should be formalized with parking edge “T’s”
and updated parking regulations as appropriate.

other transit priority recommendations which would
only further improve transit operations.

The results of this analysis show that average
vehicular delays along the corridor would operate
acceptably. As improvements are implemented
along Santa Monica Boulevard, City Staff will
continue to monitor flow and congestion and make
signal timing adjustments as appropriate.

SIGNAL TIMING ENHANCEMENTS
& SYNCHRONIZATION

PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND SIGNAGE

6.2 CORRIDOR-WIDE SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to the safety treatment options that
are applied at site specific locations (priority
intersections), other corridor-wide enhancements
should be implemented along the length of Santa
Monica Boulevard. This section discusses additional
universal improvements that would provide a safer,
more consistent user experience for all.

Improved Pavement Markings Example
(Broadway Safety Project)

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 39
In addition to signage and striping updates
along the corridor, red curb zones should also be
refreshed and formalized, especially in the vicinity
of marked crosswalks. Assembly Bill 413, also
known as California’s “Daylighting Law,” prohibits
vehicles from parking within 20 feet of any marked
or unmarked crosswalk regardless of red curb
markings or signage. This offset can be reduced
to 15 feet with the presence of curb extensions.

This required buffer is intended to improve visibility
sight lines by clearing obstructions, including
conflicts with parked vehicles, enabling drivers to
see pedestrians waiting to cross.

Red curbs should also be added adjacent to alleys
and driveways to provide sufficient visibility for
vehicles entering and existing Santa Monica
Boulevard. When the length of curb between
adjacent driveways is less than 16 feet, the entire
segment should be painted.

Formalizing red curb zones improves visibility
for vehicles turning out of driveways and alleys,
reduces pedestrian crashes, and provides a more
predictable environment. Some segments may
experience a reduction in on-street parking spaces
due to these requirements.

During the community walk audit, as well as
field observations with the TAC, the project team
observed multiple locations where mature trees
covered existing street lights which would impact
the overall lighting along the corridor. This was
especially evident at 20th Street and 26th Street
where the tree canopy was encompassing signal
poles, mast arms, and street lights.

The safety analysis identified that 22% of
pedestrian-involved injury crashes occur at night.

Future efforts should evaluate the overall lighting
conditions along the entire corridor and include a
detailed photometric assessment. The City should
also evaluate tree height and width to identify
where trees need pruning.

FORMALIZE RED CURB ZONES LIGHTING
Lighting condition impacted by tree canopy

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 40

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) 6TH ST
LINCOLN BLVD10TH ST11TH ST14TH ST15TH ST16TH ST18TH ST19TH ST20TH STCHELSEA AVE PARK DR26TH STPRINCETON STSTANFORD STFRANKLIN ST

SANTA MONICA BLVD

OCEAN AVE

CENTINELA AVE
2ND ST3RD ST PROMENADE4TH ST5TH ST7TH ST9TH ST12TH STEUCLID ST17TH ST21ST ST22ND ST23RD STHARVARD STYALE STBERKELEY ST 25TH ST

CLOVERFIELD BLVD
Focus Intersections

RECOMMENDATIONS
SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 41

6.3 FOCUS INTERSECTIONS RECOMMENDATIONS
As part of this safety analysis, specific
intersections, or “focus intersections” were
identified through close coordination with the
project team. These locations were chosen due to
their unique crash history, geometric conditions,
proximity to community resources, and/or study
team observations and community input.

According to the 2022 LRSP, two intersections on
Santa Monica Boulevard made the list of the “Top
Signalized Intersections Overall” (6th Street and
20th Street) and three additional intersections
made the list on the “Top Crash Locations at
Unsignalized Intersections Overall” (15th Street,
16th Street, and 18th Street).

Through the Safety Audit, each intersection along
the corridor was analyzed and assigned a weighted
crash severity score. Based on these scores as
well as the public interest and feedback received
from preliminary community engagement through
the Social Pinpoint online survey a total of 15 focus
intersections were identified. For these focus
intersections, detailed recommendations and
concept designs have been developed to directly
address the unique conditions at each location
as well as respond to and address community
concerns.

Figure 18. Focus Intersections Locations

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BLVD
6TH ST
Goodwill
Tar & Roses
Santa Monica Public
Library
Southland Credit
Union
Existing Parklet
6TH ST SANTA MONICA BLVD

OCEAN AVE

CENTINELA AVE
1 2
2 2
3 4
4 2
3 5
Between 2015 and 2024, a total of 20 crashes occurred at the intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and 6th Street, including three that resulted in serious injuries. The community also identified this intersection as a priority location during the Social Pinpoint mapping exercise. Located in the heart of the downtown area and immediately adjacent to the Public Library, 6th Street experiences high traffic volumes, high pedestrian crossings with multiple transit routes traversing through the intersection. Community members highlighted that Santa Monica Boulevard and 6th Street is difficult to cross and has multiple sight line issues. During the Safety Walk Audit, drivers were observed traveling in the opposing lanes, blocking intersections and crosswalks. It was also observed that drivers turning left to and from Santa Monica Boulevard had difficulty executing their movements during the permissive phases due to insufficient gaps in the opposing through movements. A north/south Class II bike lane on 6th Street intersects Santa Monica Boulevard and the community expressed interest in enhancing that facility.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations for 6th Street include
implementing pedestrian enhancements such
as a scramble phase with diagonal crossings
and “No Right On Red” restrictions as well as
new activated push buttons. The pedestrian
scramble will safely control movements at
this intersection, since it sees a high amount
of pedestrian activity due to the Public Library
at the intersection. Curb extensions at all
corners would enhance pedestrian visibility,
reduce pedestrian crossing distance, and
reduce vehicle turn speeds of right-turn
vehicles approaching the intersection. The
curb extensions on the southwest side of
the intersection would be continued to the
west to include the near-side bus stop and
allow expanded sidewalks for boarding and
alighting. Bicycle enhancements include
new striping on the approaches as well as
bike boxes to allow cyclists to bypass vehicle
queues. The transit stop on the west side
of 6th Street would be relocated to the
near-side of Santa Monica Boulevard on the
westbound approach.

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD & 6TH STREET

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

PEDESTRIAN SCRAMBLE

NO RIGHT-TURN ON RED

CURB EXTENSIONS

BIKE LANE MODIFICATIONS
5 NEAR-SIDE BUS STOP RELOCATION
1 4
2 3
6TH STREET

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BLVD

LINCOLN BLVD
Hyundai Santa
Monica
Mobil
Burton Hearing Aid
Center
Jack in the Box
Santa Monica Tailor
by Bello
1 2
3 5
4 LINCOLN BLVD

SANTA MONICA BLVD

OCEAN AVE

CENTINELA AVE
Lincoln Boulevard was identified as a focus intersection based on comments throughout the engagement process and crash history. Between 2015-2024, 38 crashes were reported with two serious injuries. In addition, Lincoln Boulevard serves as a truck route with large vehicle traffic in the north-south directions.

Members of the community shared that Lincoln Boulevard is difficult to cross and has issues with vehicles speeding. It was also noted that the bus stop is located in a difficult place and that there is congestion on all approaches.

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations for Lincoln Boulevard
include modifying the existing traffic signal
at the intersection. This includes adding
leading pedestrian interval signal phasing
to enhance pedestrian visibility in the
crosswalks and new activated push buttons.

Since the eastbound left-turn movement
currently operates with a permissive
movement, it’s recommended this be
converted to a protected left-turns to reduce
vehicular and pedestrian conflicts. A modified
curb extension on the southwest corner
of the intersection would be continued
west to include the near-side bus stop and
allow expanded sidewalks for boarding and
alighting. On the other side of the street
in the westbound direction, traffic signals
modifications with signage enhancements
would allow a transit signal priority to allow
buses to bypass vehicle queues.

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD & LINCOLN BOULEVARD

PROTECTED LEFT TURN

LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVALS

TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY

BUS STOP BULBOUT

DAYLIGHTING AT INTERSECTIONS
1 4
2 5
LINCOLN BOULEVARD 3

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BLVD
10TH ST
Santa Monica College
of Performing Arts
Santa Monica MEIS Architects
Classic Tile and Flooring Inc.
1 2
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
STOP
STOP
7 7
10TH ST

SANTA MONICA BLVD

OCEAN AVE

CENTINELA AVE
The intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and 10th Street saw a total of 18 crashes between 2015-2024.

Three of those crashes involved a serious injury and five involved a pedestrian. Community members noted that they would like to see improved crossings at this intersection. The Santa Monica College Performing Arts Center is located on the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard between 10th Street and 11th Street.

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

This design reduces pedestrian exposure to
turning vehicles and improves accessibility.

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are
recommended across Santa Monica Boulevard
to improve pedestrian crossing conditions and
vehicle yielding rates.

The right-turn only restriction on 10th
Street onto Santa Monica Boulevard will be
reinforced with pavement markings and flex
posts as well as hardened centerlines to
prevent left-turn movements from the minor
street. The centerline hardening also helps to
reduce left-turn turning speeds from Santa
Monica Boulevard onto the minor street.

The combination of these treatments will
reduce crashes and create more predictable
movements at this intersection. Additional
painted red curbs and buffered striping are
recommended on the westbound approach and
eastbound departure.

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD & 10TH STREET

NEW CROSSWALK

CURB EXTENSIONS & DIRECTIONAL

CURB RAMPS

RIGHT-TURN ONLY
1 3
2 DAYLIGHTING AT INTERSECTIONS

HARDENED CENTERLINES

FLASHING BEACONS (RRFB)

ADVANCE YIELD LINE
4 5
6 7
10TH STREET

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BLVD
11TH ST
Stokes Tire Service
Kia Santa Monica
Santa Monica Audi
Parts Department
SMC Performing Arts
Center Parking 1
4 2
2 2 2
3 3
3 5
3 11TH ST

SANTA MONICA BLVD

OCEAN AVE

CENTINELA AVE
The intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and 11th Street saw 17 total crashes between 2015-2024. Two of those crashes involved serious injury, four crashes involved a pedestrian, and three crashes involved a bicyclist. 11th Street also has a Class II bike lane that crosses Santa Monica Boulevard and the community expressed interest in enhancing this facility. Comments from the community also highlight 11th Street as a difficult intersection to navigate. The Santa Monica Performing Arts Center is located on the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard between 10th Street and 11th Street.

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations for 11th Street
include signal modifications, adding leading
pedestrian interval signal phasing as well
as new activated push buttons. Since the
left-turn movements currently operate as
permissive movements, it’s recommended
that all approaches be converted to
protected left-turns to reduce vehicular and
pedestrian conflicts.

Enhanced bicycle accommodations are
also recommended at the intersection
approaches as well as conflict striping
across Santa Monica Boulevard to enhance
visibility and improve driver awareness,
encourage bicycle activity across Santa
Monica Boulevard, and improve connectivity
to parallel bicycle routes.

The existing bi-directional curb ramps would
be reconstructed as unidirectional ramps,
providing clearer, more direct crossings.

This design reduces pedestrian exposure to
turning vehicles and improves accessibility.

In addition, the existing transit stop on
the west side of 11th Street would be
relocated to the far-side to improve transit
operations, decrease delays and improve
pedestrian visibility.

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD & 11TH STREET

LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVALS
bIKE LANE MODIFICATIONS

DIRECTIONAL CURB RAMPS

PROTECTED LEFT-TURN

BUS STOP RELOCATION
1 4
2 5
11TH STREET 3

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Tesla Superchargers
Santa Monica Ford
Chevron
Bludso’s BBQ
The Room
Santa Monica
Miller’s Lock Shop

SANTA MONICA BLVD
14TH ST
1 2
3 2
3 4
4 4
4 14TH ST

SANTA MONICA BLVD

OCEAN AVE

CENTINELA AVE
Between 2015-2024, 34 crashes were reported at Santa Monica Boulevard and 14th Street. Two of those crashes caused a serious injury, four crashes involved a pedestrian and four involved a bicyclist. 14th was identified as a focus intersection because of the multiple bicycle and pedestrian involved crashes and volume of comments received by the community. 14th Street also has a Class II bike lane that intersects Santa Monica Boulevard and the community expressed interest in enhancing this facility.

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations for 14th Street
include signal modifications, adding
leading pedestrian interval signal phasing
as well as new activated push buttons.

Enhanced bicycle accommodations are
also recommended at the intersection
approaches as well as conflict striping
across Santa Monica Boulevard. Enhanced
visibility will improve driver awareness,
encourage bicycle activity across Santa
Monica Boulevard, and improve connectivity
to parallel bicycle routes. The existing
bi-directional curb ramps would be
reconstructed as unidirectional ramps,
providing clearer, more direct crossings.

This design reduces pedestrian exposure to
turning vehicles and improves accessibility.

In addition, the existing transit stops
on either side of 14th Street would be
relocated to the far-side to improve transit
operations, decrease delays and improve
pedestrian visibility.

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD & 14TH STREET

LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVALS

BUS STOP RELOCATION
bIKE LANE MODIFICATIONS

DIRECTIONAL CURB RAMPS
1 4
2 3
14TH STREET

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) 15TH ST

SANTA MONICA BLVD

OCEAN AVE

CENTINELA AVE
Lexus Santa Monica
Tesla Supercharger
Santa Monica iPhone
Screen Repair
15th St Liquor
Thrifty Car Rental

SANTA MONICA BLVD
15TH ST
Lexus Santa Monica
4 2
2 6
6 5
5 3
4 3
3 1
1 1
The intersection of 15th Street and Santa Monica Boulevard is the western-most pedestrian crossing connecting the 17th Street/ SMC Metro station to the UCLA Medical Campus located one block to the north.

This intersection experienced 24 crashes between 2015-2024 with two crashes involving a pedestrian, and two crashes causing severe injury. There is an existing RRFB across Santa Monica Boulevard on the west side of the intersection, and the recommended improvements seek to further enhance the existing pedestrian crossings at this location.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations at this intersection
include installing curb extensions into Santa
Monica Boulevard on the southwest and
northwest corners as well as curb extensions
into 15th Street on the northeast corner only. The
curb extensions reduce the crossing distances
while new high-visibility crosswalks enhance
pedestrian visibility. With the construction
of new curb extensions, the existing bidirectional curb ramps would be reconstructed as unidirectional ramps, providing clearer,
more direct crossings. This design reduces
pedestrian exposure to turning vehicles and
improves accessibility, thereby enhancing overall
pedestrian safety. The existing RRFB would
be relocated to accommodate the proposed
curb extensions. Additional painted red curbs
and buffered striping are recommended on the
westbound approach and eastbound departure.

The right-turn only restriction on 15th Street
onto Santa Monica Boulevard will be reinforced
with pavement markings and flex posts as
well as hardened centerlines prevent left-turn
movements from the minor street. The centerline
hardening also helps to reduce left-turn
turning speeds from Santa Monica Boulevard
onto the minor street. The combination of
these treatments will create more predictable
movements at this intersection. Additional
painted red curbs and buffered striping are
recommended on the westbound approach and
eastbound departure.

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD & 15TH STREET
15TH STREET

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

CURB EXTENSIONS

FLASHING BEACONS (RRFB)

DIRECTIONAL CURB RAMPS
1 3
2 RIGHT-TURN ONLY FROM SIDE STREETS

HARDENED CENTERLINES

DAYLIGHTING AT INTERSECTIONS
4 5
6 11.A.a
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) 16TH ST

SANTA MONICA BLVD

OCEAN AVE

CENTINELA AVE

SANTA MONICA BLVD
16TH ST
Lexus Santa Monica
DK’s Donuts and
Bakery
Vacant
Building
STOP
STOP
1 1
1 2
4 4
3 6 5
5 2
Between 2015-2024, 37 crashes were reported at Santa Monica Boulevard and 16th Street. Five of those crashes involved a pedestrian and four involved a bicyclist. Community engagement efforts highlighted that this intersection has experienced corner sight issues and difficulties crossing the street. There is an existing RRFB across Santa Monica Boulevard on the east side of the intersection, and the recommended improvements seek to further enhance the pedestrian crossings at this location. 16th Street and Santa Monica Boulevard is the primary pedestrian crossing connecting 17th Street/ SMC Metro station to the UCLA Medical Campus located one block to the north.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations at this intersection include
removing the existing pedestrian refuge island
and installing curb extensions into Santa Monica
Boulevard on the southeast and northeast corners
as well as curb extensions into 16th Street on the
southwest corner only. The curb extensions reduce
the crossing distances while new high-visibility
crosswalks enhance pedestrian visibility while
providing more consistency along the corridor. The
new curb extensions would replace the existing
bi-directional curb ramps with unidirectional
ramps, providing clearer, more direct crossings.

This design reduces pedestrian exposure to turning
vehicles and improves accessibility. The existing
RRFB would be relocated to accommodate the
proposed curb extensions. Additional painted red
curbs and buffered striping are recommended
on the westbound approach and eastbound
departure.

The right-turn only restriction on 16th Street
onto Santa Monica Boulevard will be reinforced
with pavement markings and flex posts as well
as hardened centerlines to prevent left-turn
movements from the minor street. The centerline
hardening also helps to reduce left-turn turning
speeds from Santa Monica Boulevard onto the
minor street. The combination of these treatments
will create more predictable movements at
this intersection. Additional painted red curbs
and buffered striping are recommended on the
westbound approach and eastbound departure.

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD & 16TH STREET
16TH STREET

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

CURB EXTENSIONS

FLASHING BEACONS (RRFB)

DIRECTIONAL CURB RAMPS
1 3
2 RIGHT-TURN ONLY

HARDENED CENTERLINES (REPLACE

PEDESTRIAN REFUGE)
4 5

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) 18TH ST

SANTA MONICA BLVD

OCEAN AVE

CENTINELA AVE
STOP
STOP
Midway Car Rental
Brentwood

SANTA MONICA BLVD
18TH ST
Honda Dealer
Vacant Lot
Honda Pre-Owned
Vehicles
2 2
2 1
1 3
5 3
4 4
6 6
Between 2019 and 2023 seven crashes occurred at the intersection with two of those crashes being severe.

Wilshire Boulevard and 18th Street was identified as a hot-spot safety intersection in the Wilshire Safety Plan in 2020. During the Safety Audit, drivers at 18th Street were observed obstructing pedestrian access by failing to yield to pedestrians and blocking the crosswalk. There is an existing RRFB across Santa Monica Boulevard on the west side of the intersection, and the recommended improvements seek to further enhance the existing pedestrian crossings at this location.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations at this intersection
include installing curb extensions into
Santa Monica Boulevard on the southeast
and northeast corners as well as curb
extensions into 18th Street on the southwest
corner only. The curb extensions reduce the
crossing distances while new high-visibility
crosswalks enhance pedestrian visibility.

The new curb extensions would replace
the existing bi-directional curb ramps with
unidirectional ramps, providing clearer,
more direct crossings. This design reduces
pedestrian exposure to turning vehicles and
improves accessibility, thereby enhancing
overall pedestrian safety. The existing RRFB
would be relocated to accommodate the
proposed curb extensions.

The right-turn only restriction on 18th
Street onto Santa Monica Boulevard will be
reinforced with pavement markings and
flex posts as well as hardened centerlines
prevent left-turn movements from the minor
street. The centerline hardening also helps to
reduce left-turn turning speeds from Santa
Monica Boulevard onto the minor street.

The combination of these treatments will
create more predictable movements at this
intersection. Additional painted red curbs
and buffered striping are recommended on
the westbound approach and eastbound
departure.

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD & 18TH STREET
18TH STREET

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

RIGHT-TURN ONLY

CURB EXTENSIONS

DAYLIGHTING AT INTERSECTIONS
1 3
2 HARDENED CENTERLINES

DIRECTIONAL CURB RAMPS

FLASHING BEACONS (RRFB)
4 5
6 11.A.a
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BLVD
19TH ST
Santa Monica
Music Center
Honda Pre-Owned
Vehicles
Maserati of Santa
Monica
SMC Pharmacy STOP
STOP
1 2
2 2
3 3
5 5
6 4
4 SANTA MONICA BLVD 19TH ST

OCEAN AVE

CENTINELA AVE
Similar to 18th Street, 19th Street at Santa Monica Boulevard is a two-way stop-controlled intersection. The Crash Analysis identified 19th Street as an intersection with a high number of injury-related crashes.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations at this intersection
include installing curb extensions into Santa
Monica Boulevard on the southeast and
northeast corners as well as curb extensions
into 19th Street on the southwest corner
only. The curb extensions reduce the crossing
distances while new high-visibility crosswalks
enhance pedestrian visibility. The new curb
extensions would replace the existing bidirectional curb ramps with unidirectional ramps, providing clearer, more direct crossings.

This design reduces pedestrian exposure to
turning vehicles and improves accessibility.

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are
recommended across Santa Monica Boulevard
to improve pedestrian crossing conditions and
vehicle yielding rates.

The right-turn only restriction on 19th
Street onto Santa Monica Boulevard will be
reinforced with pavement markings and
flex posts as well as hardened centerlines
prevent left-turn movements from the minor
street. The centerline hardening also helps to
reduce left-turn turning speeds from Santa
Monica Boulevard onto the minor street.

The combination of these treatments will
create more predictable movements at this
intersection. Additional painted red curbs and
buffered striping are recommended on the
westbound approach and eastbound departure.

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD & 19TH STREET
19TH STREET

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

NEW CROSSWALK

CURB EXTENSIONS

FLASHING BEACONS (RRFB)
1 3
2 RIGHT-TURN ONLY

HARDENED CENTERLINES

DAYLIGHTING AT INTERSECTIONS
4 5
6 11.A.a
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) STOP

SANTA MONICA BLVD

CHELSEA AVE
UCLA Medical
Group
Volkswagen
Santa Monica
Big Waves
Laundromat
McKinley School

CHELSEA AVE

SANTA MONICA BLVD

OCEAN AVE

CENTINELA AVE
1 2
2 2
3 3
5 6
6 6
4 Chelsea Avenue is an important location due to immediate vicinity to McKinley Elementary School and the high volume of school age children walking to and from school. During the Community Walk Audit (Touchpoint #2), community members noted the high vehicular speeds along Santa Monica Boulevard in front of the school as well as the long distances between crosswalks. Through discussions with the school, teachers, the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) and community members, there was a strong desire for a protected crosswalk at this location.

In the Spring of 2025, after the Walk Audit and Social Pinpoint survey, the City of Santa Monica implemented Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS) Pedestrian Improvements at Six Schools, which included McKinley Elementary. These improvements included traffic signal modifications as well as new curb extensions, curb ramp improvements and crosswalk renewals at Cloverfield Boulevard. The project also included crosswalk renewals across Chelsea Avenue, and addition of a center two-way left turn lane at Chelsea Avenue.

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS
The improvements that are recommended as part of
this Study include installing a new pedestrian traffic
signal, a raised median, and a high visibility crosswalk with directional curb ramps. The pedestrian signal would be synchronized with the nearby signal at Cloverfield
Boulevard and stop traffic on Santa Monica Boulevard
to allow school children and pedestrian crossings. The
raised median would create a right-turn only restriction similar to other locations along the corridor and would also eliminate the left-turn conflicts from Santa Monica Boulevard onto the sides streets.

The City’s Bicycle Action Plan also identifies Chelsea
Avenue and Park Drive as a future priority connection.

The recommended improvements include bicycle conflict
striping through the intersection as well as bicycle
detection for the pedestrian signal. The new raised
median would include an opening to connect the Class III sharrow on Chelsea Avenue to the Class II receiving bike lane segment on Park Drive.

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD & CHELSEA AVENUE

NEW CROSSWALK
bIKE LANE MODIFICATION

PEDESTRIAN REFUGES AND MEDIANS

RIGHT-TURN ONLY

PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC SIGNAL

DIRECTIONAL CURB RAMPS
1 4
2 5
3 6 CHELSEA AVENUE

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) 26th ST

SANTA MONICA BLVD

OCEAN AVE

CENTINELA AVE

SANTA MONICA BLVD
26TH ST
Apartment
Complex
Namita’s Eyebrow
Threading Salon
Allan Jeries
Framing
Vacant Building
CVS Pharmacy 1
2 2
4 3
Community members mentioned during multiple outreach activities that 26th Street and Santa Monica Boulevard is a challenging intersection. During the Safety Audit the project team observed drivers who were attempting left turns from Santa Monica Boulevard onto 26th Street during the permissive phases could not find an adequate gap in oncoming traffic to completed their turns and would have to wait to execute their maneuver when the traffic signal turned yellow or red, after waiting in the middle of the intersection.

Vehicles were also seen blocking the crosswalks due to the upstream queueing.

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS
Since the left-turn movements currently
operate as permissive movements, it’s
recommended these be converted to
protected left-turns to reduce vehicular
and pedestrian conflicts. Additional traffic
signal modifications would allow for a
transit signal priority (queue jump) in the
westbound direction. The recommendations
at this intersection include installing curb
extensions into Santa Monica Boulevard
on the southwest and northeast corners
as well as curb extensions into 26th Street
on the southeast corner only. The curb
extensions reduce the crossing distances
while new high-visibility crosswalks
enhance pedestrian visibility. The curb
extensions on the southwest and northeast
corners of the intersection would be
continued along Santa Monica Boulevard
to include the near-side bus stops and
allow expanded sidewalks for boarding and
alighting.

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD & 26TH STREET

LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVALS

BUS BULBOUT

CURB EXTENSIONS & DIRECTIONAL

CURB RAMPS

ADDED PARKING STALLS
1 4
2 26TH STREET 3

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

PRINCETON ST

SANTA MONICA BLVD

OCEAN AVE

CENTINELA AVE
STOP
STOP

SANTA MONICA BLVD

PRINCETON ST
Sir Speedy
McDonald’s
Rip City
Skates
AE German
Car Service
Coee
Shop
The Rich
Spa Now
Sedler’s
Shoe Repair
Lucky’s Pet
Grooming
2 2
4 4
3 3
5 1 5
1 The Princeton Street intersection has an irregular geometry where the streets are not directly aligned, which results in some unpredictable maneuvers from drivers. The Safety Audit showed there have been 18 crashes at this intersection over the last decade. While there is an existing crosswalk with RRFBs on the west side of the intersection, pedestrians must cross five lanes of traffic at once with no enhanced safety countermeasures. The recommended improvements seek to further enhance the pedestrian crossings at this location. Community members also expressed desire for safer vehicle movements at Princeton Street.

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS
Improvements at Princeton Street include a
right-turn only restriction from Princton Street
onto Santa Monica Boulevard, reinforced with
pavement markings and flex posts. In addition,
a new landscape median restricts left turn
movements from Santa Monica Boulevard onto
Princeton Street from the eastbound direction,
but still allows them in the westbound direction.

The new median would also allow a pedestrian
refuge so that pedestrians would only need
to cross one direction of traffic at a time. The
combination of these treatments will create more
predictable movements at this intersection.

With the improvements to the RRFB, including
advanced yield signs and striping, the existing
bi-directional curb ramps would be reconstructed
as unidirectional ramps, providing clearer, more
direct crossings. This design reduces pedestrian
exposure to turning vehicles and improves
accessibility.

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD & PRINCETON STREET

DIRECTIONAL CURB RAMPS

PEDESTRIAN REFUGE AND

LANDSCAPED MEDIANS

RIGHT-TURN ONLY

FLASHING BEACONS (RRFB)

ADVANCE YIELD LINE
1 4
2 5
PRINCETON STREET 3

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) STOP

SANTA MONICA BLVD

STANFORD ST
Days Inn
Wine Expo
Major Motor Cars
Little Lunch/
Ohand Coee
Bunda Fitness
Center
Santa Monica School
of Dance and Music STOP

STANFORD ST

SANTA MONICA BLVD

OCEAN AVE

CENTINELA AVE
2 2
4 4
4 3
3 5
5 6
6 1
1 The Stanford Steet intersection was highlighted during the Safety Audit which noted this location has a experienced an increase in pedestrian demand due to the recent development at the southwest corner of the intersection. There have been 15 collisions at this intersection over the last decade.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Improvements at Stanford Street include a right-turn
only restriction from Stanford Street onto Santa Monica Boulevard which will be reinforced with pavement markings and flex posts. In addition, a new landscape median restricts left turn movements from Santa Monica Boulevard onto
Stanford Street from the westbound direction, but still allow them in the eastbound direction. The new median
would also allow a pedestrian refuge so that pedestrians would only need to cross one direction of traffic at a time.

The combination of these treatments will create more
predictable movements at this intersection.

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are
recommended across Santa Monica Boulevard to improve
pedestrian crossing conditions and vehicle yielding rates.

With the improvements to the RRFB, including advanced
yield signs and striping, the existing bi-directional curb ramps would be reconstructed as unidirectional ramps,
providing clearer, more direct crossings. This design reduces pedestrian exposure to turning vehicles and improves
accessibility.

The available width of Santa Monica Boulevard in the
vicinity of Stanford Street provides sufficient space to accommodate a dedicated peak-hour bus lane without
significantly impacting general traffic operations. This could be achieved by reallocating the existing parking lane during the morning and evening commute periods, using clear
pavement markings and signage to indicate the bus-only
restriction. The lane would operate exclusively for buses during designated peak hours, improving transit reliability and reducing travel times for riders, while reverting to general parking use during off-peak periods.

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD & STANFORD STREET

STANFORD STREET

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

NEW CROSSWALK

PEDESTRIAN REFUGE AND
LandSCAPED MEDIAN

RIGHT-TURN ONLY
1 3
2 FLASHING BEACON (RRFB)

ADVANCE YIELD LINE

PEAK HOUR BUS LANE
4 5
6 11.A.a
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

FRANKLIN ST

OCEAN AVE

CENTINELA AVE
STOP

SANTA MONICA BLVD

FRANKLIN ST
Willow Spa
Soneca
Martial Arts
Ptak Family
Chiropractic
Awesome
Dental
Super
Lash Spa
Super
Dental Care
Box ‘N Burn Santa Monica
Boxing Fitness Gym
Soul Massage
Hearing Aid
STOP
5 2
4 4
4 3
3 5
6 6
7 7
1 1
Community feedback throughout the engagement process, including the Social Pinpoint mapping exercise identified Franklin Street as a priority intersection where community members noted absence of crossing opportunities across Santa Monica Boulevard. According to the Safety Audit, between 2015-2024, Franklin Street saw a total of 14 crashes at the intersection with one crash causing serious injury and 3 total crashes involved pedestrian, bicyclists, and/or scooters.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Improvements at Franklin Street include a right-turn only restriction from Franklin Street onto Santa Monica Boulevard which will be reinforced with pavement markings and flex posts. In addition, a new landscape median restricts left turn movements from Santa Monica Boulevard onto Franklin Street from the westbound direction, but still allow them in the eastbound direction. The new median would also allow a pedestrian refuge so that pedestrians would only need to cross one direction of traffic at a time. The combination of these treatments will create more predictable movements at this intersection.

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are
recommended across Santa Monica Boulevard to improve
pedestrian crossing conditions and vehicle yielding rates.

With the improvements to the RRFB, including advanced
yield signs and striping, the existing bi-directional curb ramps would be reconstructed as unidirectional ramps,
providing clearer, more direct crossings. This design reduces pedestrian exposure to turning vehicles and improves
accessibility.

The available width of Santa Monica Boulevard in the vicinity of Franklin Street provides sufficient space to accommodate a dedicated peak-hour bus lane without significantly
impacting general traffic operations. This could be achieved by reallocating the existing parking lane during the morning and evening commute periods, using clear pavement
markings and dynamic signage to indicate the bus-only
restriction. The lane would operate exclusively for buses during designated peak hours, improving transit reliability and reducing travel times for riders, while reverting to general parking use during off-peak periods.

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD & FRANKLIN STREET

FRANKLIN STREET

PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

PEDESTRIAN REFUGE AND
LaNDSCAPED MEDIAN

NEW CROSSWALK

RIGHT-TURN ONLY
1 3
2 FLASHING BEACON (RRFB)

ADVANCE YIELD LINE

PEAK HOUR BUS LANE

DIRECTIONAL CURB RAMPS
4 5
6 7

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) [ THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ]

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

7. NEXT STEPS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) One of the goals of the Santa Monica Boulevard
Safety Study is to identify the lowest cost, highest
impact approach to rethinking transportation
safety through design and operations. The Safety
Study has touched on the intensive community
engagement process and detailed data analysis
that has led to the identification of the safety
countermeasures on Santa Monica Boulevard
discussed in Chapter 6. This Study is recommending
a phased approach to implementing the proposed
project identified so that enhancements can be
deployed quickly, tested, and evaluated.

Prior to implementation, each of the recommended
improvements would need further evaluation
and considerations as there are various factors
influencing the feasibility of a project as well as
the ease of initiating, completing, and putting
a project into action. While a project may
align with community interests and priorities,
engineering complexity, funding considerations,
and coordination with other stakeholders also
contribute to the actual implementation of a
project.

The following sections detail the recommended
phasing strategy, steps, and actions to carry out
the overall vision of the Santa Monica Boulevard
Safety Study. The recommended phasing
strategy categorizes improvements into shortterm and long-term improvements depending on how complicated the projects are, ease of
implementation, and availability of funding. Lowcost measures that can be constructed in the near term to provide immediate benefits should
be prioritized while the City works to advance
designs and seek additional funding for more
complex project elements. This phasing strategy
is also intended to provide guidance and flexibility
based on project-specific conditions and will
serve as a foundational reference to guide future
coordination, funding requests, and infrastructure
planning efforts.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 59
A set of high-level unit costs were established
to develop a rough order magnitude (ROM) cost
estimate for improvements recommended at each
intersection. The cost estimates are based on highlevel recommendations and quantities and should be used for planning purposes only. Costs were
broken down into:
• General overhead related items (mobilization,
traffic control, etc)
• General construction costs (demolition,
construction) including 25% contingency
As discussed previously, actual implementation of
a project may be based on engineering complexity,
coordination with other stakeholders, available
funding, and other factors. The timing of delivery
of various components of this Safety Study is
intended to be flexible to maximize implementation
opportunities and resources as they become
available.

High-level cost estimates for each phase of the safety study project include:

Appendix D includes the full list of projects by intersection and their cost estimate. pHASE 1

TOTAL COST
pHASE 2

SHORT-TERM LONG-TERM
$3.8 million
~ $11.1 million
$7.3 million

7.1 COST ESTIMATE

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 60
Each of the recommended improvements is
assigned a potential phasing based on the
cost of the project as well as the likely ease of
constructibility, it will determine if that project will be considered short- or long-term. The intent of
this phasing approach is to prioritize achievable
safety improvements for early action, while larger
projects are strategically scheduled for future
investments. These potential phases are intended
to be flexible based on project-specific conditions
and projects may move forward or back based on
any of the factors mentioned previously.

Table 4 summarizes the recommended
improvements, the ROM cost estimates, and the
potential phase it could be implemented. The table
is organized to list intersections in geographic order
on the corridor starting from the west and moving
east.

Short-term measures include low-cost corridor-wide improvements that can be implemented in short order as resources allow. These improvements can include projects like paint, signage, and signal timing changes and do not require major design changes and reconstruction. Phase 1 projects could be implemented in two years and would likely utilize local funds.

Long-term projects will require additional design and funding and should be prioritized when funding becomes available. These projects can include major signal infrastructure improvements, major signal phasing changes, and improvements at the focus intersections identified. Phase 2 projects could be implemented in three to ten years and can be prioritized as funding becomes available.
pHASE 1
pHASE 2

SHORT-TERM

LONG-TERM

7.2 POTENTIAL PHASING

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

LOCATION
(West to East) RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PHASING ROM COST ESTIMATES Ocean Avenue Traffic Signal Modifications - Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) Phase 1 $22,500.00 2nd Street No-Right-On-Red Phase 1 $22,500.00
4th Street No-Right-On-Red Phase 1 $22,500.00
5th Street No-Right-On-Red Phase 1 $22,500.00
6th Street
Installation of Pedestrian Scramble Phase with Diagonal Crossing and Activated Push Buttons Phase 1 $380,600 No-Right-On-Red
Westbound Bus Stop Relocation
Install Bike Boxes on Side-Street
Proposed Extension for Near-Side Transit Stop Phase 2 $243,300 Curb Extensions on Side-Streets (pending truck-turn templates) 7th Street Installation of Pedestrian Scramble Phase with Diagonal Crossing and Activated Push Buttons Phase 1 $225,600 Bike Lane Conflict Striping Across Santa Monica Boulevard Lincoln Boulevard
Traffic Signal Modifications - Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI's) Phase 1 $295,000 Installation of Painted Curb Striping
Traffic Signal Modification - Protected Left-Turn Phasing Installation of Activated Push Buttons
Proposed Sidewalk Extension for Near-Side Transit Stop
Traffic Signal Modifications - Transit Signal Priority Travelling Westbound (Queue Jump) Phase 2 $276,600 Bus Pad
9th Street
Proposed “Yield to Pedestrians” Signage
Phase 1 $61,500 Installation of Centerline Hardening
Right-Turn Only Treatment (Side Street)
Installation of Painted Curb Striping
Curb Extensions on Santa Monica Boulevard (pending truck-turn templates) Reconstruct Curb Ramps (Uni-Directional) Phase 2 $262,100 Fire Hydrant/ Light pole relocations
SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 61
Table 2. Potential Phasing

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

LOCATION
(West to East) RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PHASING ROM COST ESTIMATES 10th Street
Proposed “Yield to Pedestrians” Signage
Phase 1 $184,000
Proposed High-Visibility Crosswalk
Right-Turn Only Treatment (Side Street)
Installation of Centerline Hardening
Proposed RRFB
Installation of Painted Curb Striping
Curb Extensions on Santa Monica Boulevard (pending truck-turn templates) Phase 2 $366,500 Curb Extensions on Side-Streets (pending truck-turn templates) Reconstruct Curb Ramps (Uni-Directional)
Catch basin Relocation
11th Street
Traffic Signal Modifications - Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI's) Phase 1 $321,300
Installation of Activated Push Buttons
Bike Lane Conflict Striping Across Santa Monica Boulevard Bike Lane Modifications on Minor Street Approaches
Relocate Bus Stop to Farside
Traffic Signal Modifications - Protected Left-Turn Phasing Reconstruct Curb Ramps (Uni-Directional) Phase 2 $240,600 Bus Pad 12th Street
Proposed “Yield to Pedestrians” Signage
Phase 1 $147,800
Proposed High-Visibility Crosswalk
Right-Turn Only Treatment (Side Street)
Installation of Centerline Hardening
Proposed RRFB
Installation of Painted Curb Striping
Curb Extensions on Santa Monica Boulevard (pending truck-turn templates) Reconstruct Curb Ramps (Uni-directional) Phase 2 $305,100 Catch basin Relocation
Euclid Street
Proposed “Yield to Pedestrians” Signage
Phase 1 $61,500 Right-Turn Only Treatment (Side Street) Installation of Centerline Hardening
Installation of Painted Curb Striping
Curb Extensions on Santa Monica Boulevard (pending truck-turn templates) Reconstruct Curb Ramps (Uni-directional) Phase 2 $408,40 Catch basin Relocation
SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 62

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

LOCATION
(West to East) RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PHASING ROM COST ESTIMATES 14th Street
Traffic Signal Modifications - Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) Phase 1 $232,300
Relocate Bus Stop to Far-Side
Bike Lane Conflict Striping Across Santa Monica Boulevard Bike Lane Modifications on Minor Street Approaches
Installation of Activated Push Buttons
Reconstruct Curb Ramps (Uni-Directional) Phase 2 $328,800 Bus Pad 15th Street
Installation of Centerline Hardening
Phase 1 $107,300
Refresh Existing High Visibility Crosswalk
Right-Turn Only Treatment (Side Street)
Relocate Existing RRFB
Installation of Painted Curb Striping
Curb Extensions on Santa Monica Boulevard (pending truck-turn templates) Reconstruct Curb Ramps (Uni-Directional) Phase 2 $366,500 Catch Basin Relocation
16th Street
Installation of Centerline Hardening
Phase 1 $109,800
Refresh Existing High Visibility Crosswalk
Right-Turn Only Treatment (Side Street)
Relocate Existing RRFB
Installation of Painted Curb Striping
Removal of Existing Pedestrian Refuge
Phase 2 $506,200 Curb Extensions on Santa Monica Boulevard (pending truck-turn templates) Reconstruct Curb Ramps (Uni-Directional)
Catch Basin Relocation
17th Street Traffic Signal Modifications - Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI's) Phase 1 $22,500 18th Street
Installation of Centerline Hardening
Phase 1 $104,800 Right-Turn Only Treatment (Side Street) Relocate Existing RRFB
Installation of Painted Curb Striping
Curb Extensions on Santa Monica Boulevard (pending truck-turn templates) Phase 2 $328,200 Curb Extensions on Side-Streets (pending truck-turn templates) Reconstruct Curb Ramps (Uni-Directional)
Catch basin Relocation
SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 63

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

LOCATION
(West to East) RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PHASING ROM COST ESTIMATES 19th Street
Proposed “Yield to Pedestrians” Signage
Phase 1 $123,500
Proposed High-Visibility Crosswalk
Right-Turn Only Treatment (Side Street)
Installation of Centerline Hardening
Proposed RRFB
Installation of Painted Curb Striping
Curb Extensions on Santa Monica Boulevard (pending truck-turn templates) Phase 2 514,900 Curb Extensions on Side-Streets (pending truck-turn templates) Reconstruct Curb Ramps (Uni-Directional)
Catch basin Relocation
20th Street
Protected Left-Turns
Phase 1 $112,500 Traffic Signal Modifications - Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) Reconstruct Curb Ramps (Uni-Directional) Phase 2 $150,000 21st Street Traffic Signal Modifications - Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) Phase 1 $22,500 22nd Street Traffic Signal Modifications - Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) Phase 1 $22,500 23rd Street Traffic Signal Modifications - Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) Phase 1 $22,500 Cloverfield Blvd. Traffic Signal Modifications - Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) Phase 1 $22,500 Chelsea Avenue
Right-Turn Only Treatment (Side Street) with No Right on Red Phase 1 $21,300 New Class II Sharrow on Park Drive Proposed Pedestrian Traffic Signal
Phase 2 $1,038,800
New Pedestrian Refuge
New Raised Landscape Median
Reconstruct Curb Ramps (Uni-directional)
Bike Lane Median Opening
Remove Parking and Add Class II Bike Lane on Chelsea Avenue Proposed High-Visibility Crosswalk
25th Street Right-Turn Only Treatment (Side Street) Phase 1 $26,500 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 64

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

LOCATION
(West to East) RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PHASING ROM COST ESTIMATES 26th Street
Traffic Signal Modifications - Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI's) Phase 1 $20,000 Added Parking Stalls on 26th Street Proposed Sidewalk Extension for Near-Side Transit Stop
Phase 2 $608,600
Curb Extensions on Side-Streets (pending truck-turn templates) Traffic Signal Modifications - Transit Signal Priority Travelling Westbound (Queue Jump) Bus Pad
Catch basin Relocation
Princeton Street
New Striped Median
Phase 1 $236,800
Refresh Existing High Visibility Crosswalk
Right-Turn Only Treatment (Side Street)
Proposed RRFB
Proposed “Yield to Pedestrians” Signage
New Raised Landscape Median
New Pedestrian Refuge Phase 2 232,600
Reconstruct Curb Ramps (Uni-directional)
Harvard Street
Proposed Peak Hour Bus/Parking Lane
Phase 1 $241,800
Proposed High-Visibility Crosswalk
Right-Turn Only Treatment (Side Street)
Proposed RRFB
Proposed “Yield to Pedestrians” Signage
New Raised Landscape Median
New Pedestrian Refuge Phase 2 $357,800
Reconstruct Curb Ramps (Uni-directional)
Yale Street Bike Lane Conflict Striping Across Santa Monica Boulevard Phase 1 $29,100 Traffic Signal Modifications - Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) Stanford Street
Proposed Peak Hour Bus/Parking Lane
Phase 1 $241,800
Proposed High-Visibility Crosswalk
Right-Turn Only Treatment (Side Street)
Proposed RRFB
Proposed “Yield to Pedestrians” Signage
New Raised Landscape Median
New Pedestrian Refuge Phase 2 $363,300
Reconstruct Curb Ramps (Uni-directional)
SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 65

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

LOCATION
(West to East) RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PHASING ROM COST ESTIMATES Berkeley Street Relocate Bus Stop to Far-Side Phase 1 $63,800 Traffic Signal Modifications - Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) Franklin Street
Proposed Peak Hour Bus/Parking Lane
Phase 1 $231,800
Proposed High-Visibility Crosswalk
Right-Turn Only Treatment (Side Street)
Proposed RRFB
Proposed “Yield to Pedestrians” Signage
New Raised Landscape Median
New Pedestrian Refuge Phase 2 $358,000
Reconstruct Curb Ramps (Uni-directional)
Centinela Avenue Traffic Signal Modifications - Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI's) Phase 1 $22,500 Subtotal Estimated Costs
Phase 1 $3,805,000
Phase 2 $7,256,000
Total Estimated Costs $11,061,000
SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 66

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

FUNDING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION RELEVANT ELIGIBLE

PROJECTS

GRANT CYCLE

CADENCE
Carbon Reduction Program - SCAG
The SCAG region anticipates receiving approximately $34 million annually of this federal program. SCAG selects projects within the region that support transit and passenger rail, active transportation, zero emission vehicles infrastructure.

Active Transportation and
micromobility Annual
Surface Transportation Block Grant STBG
- SCAG
Federal funding source for projects that preserve and improve conditions of highways, bridges, and public roads, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and transit capital projects. SCAG is responsible for the project selection process in the region.

Transit signal priority,
mobility hubs, microtransit.

Active Transportation Plans,
Complete Street Plans
Comprehensive multimodal
corridor plans
Biennial
Sustainable Communities Program - SCAG Provide funding to projects that support active transportation modes, improve roadway safety, and achieve mobility goals.

Community/Areawide Plans
Quick-Build Projects
TBD
Measure M - LA Metro
The no sunset half-cent sales tax measure funds projects to ease traffic, repair local streets and sidewalks, expand public transportation, earthquake retrofit bridges and subsidize transit fares for students, seniors, and persons with disabilities. Measure M funds many Metro projects but funding is available to local jurisdictions via the Metro Subregional Program (MSP); Metro Active Transportation, Transit and First/Last Mile (MAT) Program; and Local Return Active Transportation
Public Transportation
TBD
Table 3. Regional and Local Funding
SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD SAFETY STUDY Page 67
A variety of competitive grant funding sources are available to help Santa Monica fund elements of the Safety Plan. The descriptions are intended to provide an overview of available options and do not represent a comprehensive list. It should be noted that this section reflects funding available at the time of writing. The funding amounts, cycles, and even programs themselves are susceptible to change without notice.

7.3 GRANT FUNDING

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

FUNDING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION RELEVANT ELIGIBLE PROJECTS GRANT CYCLE

CADENCE
Active Transportation Program (ATP) -
Caltrans
Caltrans ATP was created to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, increase the safety and mobility of nonmotorized users, help achieve GHG emission reduction goals, enhance public health, and ensure that projects benefit many types of active transportation users while ensuring disadvantaged communities share the benefits.

Capital projects: environmental, design,
right-of-way, and construction phases
of a capital project
Plans: community wide bicycle,
pedestrian, SRTS, or active
transportation plans.

Non-Infrastructure: education,
encouragement activities
Biennial
Solutions for Congested Corridors
Program - Caltrans
This is a statewide, competitive program that provides funding to achieve a balanced set of transportation, environmental, and community access improvements to reduce congestion throughout the state
Projects must be in an adopted plan
Project may include improvements to
local streets and roads, public transit
facilities, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities.

Biennial
Highway Safety Improvements
Program (HSIP) - Caltrans
Serves to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads.

HISP funds are eligible for any public
road or any publicly owned bicycle
or pedestrian pathway or trail that
improves the safety for its users.

Biennial
Local Streets and Roads Program -
Caltrans
Funding dedication for cities and counties to perform basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety projects.

Safety projects
Complete streets projects
Traffic control devices
Maintenance and rehabilitation
Annual
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grant
Program
Funds to prevent serious injury and death resulting from motor vehicle collisions.

Non-infrastructure programs
Safety programs
Encouragement programs
SRTS programs
Annual
Sustainable Transportation Planning
Grant - Caltrans
Funds local and regional multimodal transportation and land use planning projects that further the region’s TRP SCS/APS and contribute to the State’s GHG reduction
SRTS Plans
Active Transportation Plans
Complete Street Plans
Annual
Table 4. State Funding 11.A.a
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) [ THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ]

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA M

SAFETY STUDY

NICA B ULEVARD

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX A. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARIES
APPENDIX B. SAFETY ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM
APPENDIX C. OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
APPENDIX D. COST ESTIMATES
APPENDIX E. CONCEPT PLANS
TOUCHPOINT #1 - LIGHT UP THE NIGHT POP UP EVENT SUMMARY TOUCHPOINT #2 - COMMUNITY WALK AUDIT SUMMARY
TOUCHPOINT #3 - OPEN HOUSE SUMMARY

COMMUNITY SURVEY SUMMARY

SAFETY AND TRANSIT ANALYSIS

SAFETY AUDIT REPORT

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) APPENDIX A.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARIES

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

COUMMUNITY OUTREACH
TOUCHPOINT #1

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study
Community Touchpoint #1
October 31 - November 21, 2024
Draft 12/12/24

LIGHT UP THE NIGHT
POP UP

EVENT SUMMARY

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

THE EVENT
As part of the Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study,
a three-week installation was set up at the
Downtown Santa Monica Public Library. The
installation coincided with the library’s Halloween
Trick-or-Treat event on October 31, 2024.

The goals of the installation were to:
• engage and educate the community
about road safety
• identify specific locations along the
corridor for improvements
• collect measurable data on community
values and preferences when it comes
to road safety
Participants of all ages were invited
to choose an LED safety light in the
color that represents the type of
improvement that they would like
to see more of along Santa Monica
Blvd. Participants then used a sticker
to indicate on a nearby map where
they’d like to see improvements.

They could also add comments and
provide contact information to stay
informed.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

IMPROVED

SIDEWALKS

SAFER VEHICLE

MOVEMENTS

SOMETHING
ELSE
SAFER

CROSSINGS

THE RESULTS
What would you like to see more
of along Santa Monica Blvd?
OUT OF A TOTAL OF 59 VOTES*, the most
popular improvement suggested by
participants was “Safer Crossings” with 18
votes. This was followed closely by “Safer
Vehicle Movements” and “Something Else”,
with a total of 17 and 16 votes respectively.

The least popular improvement was
“Improved Sidewalks”.

THE “SOMETHING ELSE” RESPONSES that
specified a recommendation included: • Protected Bike Lanes or Improved Bike Safety (4)
• Street Lighting (1) • Signal Improvements (1) • Less Cars (1) • Other/Not Indicated (6) *Votes include the number of LEDs removed
at the 10/31 event.
18 LEDS REMOVED
17 LEDS REMOVED
8 LEDS REMOVED
16 LEDS REMOVED

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

THE MAP
TOTAL = 208 STICKERS pLACED ON THE MAP

BERGAMOT STATION

ARTS CENTER
3RD ST4TH ST5TH ST6TH ST7TH ST

LINCOLN BLVD
9TH ST
10TH ST11TH ST12TH ST

EUCLID ST
14TH ST15TH ST16TH ST17TH ST18TH ST
SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD 19TH ST
20TH ST
21ST ST
23RD ST
chELSEA AVE PARK DRIVE
25TH ST
26TH ST

PRINCETON ST

HARVARD ST

YALE ST

STANFORD ST

BERKELEY ST

FRANKLIN ST

CENTINELA AVE

OCEAN AVE
2ND ST

PACIFIC OCEAN
SANTA MONICA STATE BEACh

CROSSROADS

ELEMENTARY
Lincoln Blvd. There was quite an even spread between the four categories, but the most popular category of sticker was “Safer Vehicle Movements” (59 stickers). Recommendations for “Something Else” included “street lighting,” “signal/turn signal,” “4 way stop,” “less cars,” and “curb extensions,” among others.

WHERE ARE IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED THE MOST ALONG
SANTA MONICA BLVD?
The map below indicates where stickers were placed on
the map (showing the closest cross street or mid-block
location along Santa Monica Blvd) between October 31st
and November 21st. Stickers were placed at almost every intersection. There were more stickers placed along the southern portion of the corridor, between Ocean Ave and SAFER

CROSSINGS
56 STICKERS PLACED ON THE MAP

SAFER VEHICLE

MOVEMENTS
59 STICKERS

IMPROVED

SIDEWALKS
47 STICKERS

SOMETHING
ELSE
46 STICKERS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

THE MAP, CONTINUED
30 Safer Crossings
Safer Vehicle
Movements
Improved Sidewalks
Something Else
Number of Stickers Placed on Map
Ocean Ave
2nd St
3rd St
4th St
5th St
6th St
7th St
Lincoln Blvd
Reed Park
Midblock Lincoln/7th
9th St
10th St
11th St
12th St
Euclid St
14th St
15th St
16th St
17th St
18th St
19th St
20th St
21st St
Midblock 23rd/21st
Memorial Park
23rd St
Chelsea Ave
25th St
26th St
Princeton St
Harvard St
Midblock Yale/Harvard
Midblock Berkeley/Stanford
Yale St
Stanford St
Berkeley St
Midblock Franklin/Berkeley
Franklin St
Centinela Ave
3 3
6 3
6 2
1 3
1 2
3 1
3 2
1 3
5 1
1 1
1 2
1 1
6 4
2 1
1 3
3 1
8 1
1 1
4 1
2 1
1 4
1 1
3 2
1 2
1 1
1 5
1 3
5 1
1 4
4 1
2 3
2 4
1 1
1 3
1 2
1 2
3 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 1
4 1
2 4
1 1
2 2
1 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
2 The intersection with the most feedback was Lincoln Blvd, with 17 stickers, then Ocean Ave, with 15 stickers. Following this, 2nd St, 3rd St, 4th St, 6th St, 12th St, and 20th St all had between 10 and 14 stickers. The highest number of responses for each category are as follows:
• “Safer Crossings” at 3rd and 6th St
• “Safer Vehicle Movements” at Lincoln Ave
• “Improved Sidewalks” at Ocean Ave and 4th St
• “Something Else” at 12th and 17th St

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SELECTED COMMENTS
• Slower cars with drivers that are attentive.

SAFER VEHICLE MOVEMENTS
SAFER CROSSINGS:
• More crosswalks on long blocks to avoid jaywalking.
• Scramble crossings.
• The wait times at pedestrian crossings are too long. Pedestrians therefore cross against the lights.
• Consistent pedestrian crossings. Some buttons don’t need to be pressed, others do. Many people don’t know which need to be pressed so there’s tons of jaywalking.
• Pedestrian refuge islands.

SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
• Making sidewalks special-needs friendly.
• Higher visibility provided for pedestrians.
• Better bike lanes. I got injured biking on Santa Monica Blvd. • More cameras to catch people speeding.
• Left turn signals to ensure traffic flow and safe pedestrian crossing. • No turn on red.
• Bus lanes and signal priority.
• More lights at stop signs and corners because it is hard to see pedestrians at night.

SOMETHING ELSE:

Below is a selection of general comments received that are relevant to the entire corridor. A full list of location-specific comments can be found in the appendix.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

EVENT PHOTOS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

EVENT PHOTOS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

APPENDICES

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) FARMER’S MARKET OUTREACH
TOTAL = 9 STICKERS pLACED ON THE MAP

BERGAMOT STATION

ARTS CENTER
3RD ST4TH ST5TH ST6TH ST7TH ST

LINCOLN BLVD
9TH ST
10TH ST11TH ST12TH ST

EUCLID ST
14TH ST15TH ST16TH ST17TH ST18TH ST
SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD 19TH ST
20TH ST
21ST ST
23RD ST
chELSEA AVE PARK DRIVE
25TH ST
26TH ST

PRINCETON ST

HARVARD ST

YALE ST

STANFORD ST

BERKELEY ST

FRANKLIN ST

CENTINELA AVE

OCEAN AVE
2ND ST

PACIFIC OCEAN
SANTA MONICA STATE BEACh

CROSSROADS

ELEMENTARY
A smaller, portable version of the installation was also taken to the Downtown Farmer’s Market on Wednesday, November
6, 2024. The feedback is summarized below.

SAFER

CROSSINGS
4 STICKERS PLACED ON THE MAP

SAFER VEHICLE

MOVEMENTS
1 STICKER

IMPROVED

SIDEWALKS
0 STICKERS

SOMETHING
ELSE
4 STICKERS
• More flashing beacons at unsignalized intersections.
• Más cruces peatonales. More pedestrian crossings.
• Crosswalks take too long, so jaywalking is inherently encouraged.

COMMENTS INCLUDED:

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

LIBRARY COMMENTS
Confusing sidewalk area transition between the protected bike and on-sidewalk riding up 17th St - confusing transitions from one-way to others as well.

Around Arizona and 15/16 (near UCLA) I think there should be a crossing signal. Many pedestrians use the 4-way stop to cross continuously and cars are frantic there. I want to keep people safe and have a clear time for them to cross and for cars to cross. #SAFETYFIRST Improvements for bike security on Santa Monica Blvd are needed! Crossing and riding is not safe.

More lights at stop signs (Washington, California and Idaho Avenues) corners - hard to see pedestrians at night.

Tickets for cars that don’t fully stop at stop signs.

Establish a rapid response cleanup squad for truly awful eyesores (with signs and telephone number so people know whom to call).

Making the right and left turn from Santa Monica onto Ocean Blvd - cars turn at the same time people are crossing and it's dangerous.

HAWK Beacons at unsignalized intersections, especially Princeton. RRFB yield compliance by drivers is non-existent.

Bus lanes and signal priority from Ocean to Centinela.

Protected intersections at 6th 11th, 14th, 26th and NTOR (no turn on red).

Warnings about the sand on the boardwalk re: tourists and curbs.

More crosswalks on long blocks, to avoid jaywalking.

Walking across the CVS parking lot at 26th is like roulette daily.

More shade trees 26th to Berkeley.

Higher visibility provided for pedestrians.

Making sidewalks special needs friendly.

Better bike lane; got injured once when biking on Santa Monica Blvd.

All comments received on the towers at the Santa Monica Public Library Downtown Branch are listed below.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) More cameras to catch people speeding.

Crosswalks without a light are DANGEROUS!
Scramble crossings.

Road diet - traffic circles at 10th, 16th, Chelsea, 26th, Princeton St like Bird Rock in La Jolla.

Get cars to stop parking in the middle of traffic (+1 to this).

More bike lanes please (like 17th St).

The wait times at pedestrian crossings are too long. Pedestrians therefore cross against the lights! Bike lanes.
14th and California four stop sign intersection is a mess. It needs a stop light.

Slower cars with drivers that are attentive. (I second that emotion).

More pedestrian protection for crossings between 20th and Lincoln on Santa Monica Blvd.

Consistent pedestrian crossings. Some buttons don't need to be pressed, others do. Many people don't know which need to be pressed so there's tons of jaywalking.

Pedestrian refuges.

Curb extensions.

LIBRARY COMMENTS, CONTINUED

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

LIBRARY COMMENTS, CONTINUED
Right to the City.

Make sure you use your blinker before you turn.

Stop texting or being on your phone when you are driving.

I love my birth town but LA in general needs to fix sidewalks! Ban cars! (No!)
Remove homeless please.

Let's have welcome thoughts.

Let's try to be resourceful and less wasteful.

Free internet and free electricity output.

More cops.

Public restrooms.

App to report drivers using equipment to stalk pedestrians.

Remove homeless from Reed Park, they're too close to the kids school. Santa Monica school and playground. Keep kids safe! A selection of out of scope and unrelated comments received on the towers at the Santa Monica Public Library Downtown Branch are listed below.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) FARMER’S MARKET COMMENTS
Car left turns at Chelsea going eastbound is not safe.
20th / Santa Monica Blvd on 20th cars block the bus stop and double parking on 20th (NB) for St John's.

Left turn from eastbound SM Blvd does not allow easy access into Von’s parking lot.

Extend 17th St bikeway to Montana.

More flashing beacons at unsignalized [intersections].

Más cruces peatonales. More pedestrian crossings.

Crosswalks take too long. Jaywalking inherently encouraged.

Bus stops, no place to sit, no shelters, dirty, no waste bins.

Improve pedestrian crossing at 20th. Scramble?
All comments received on the boards from the Downtown Farmer’s Market Pop up on Nov 6 are lited below.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

COUMMUNITY OUTREACH
TOUCHPOINT #2

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study
Engagement Touchpoint #2
February 22, 2025

COMMUNITY WALK AUDIT

SUMMARY

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

THE EVENT
As part of the Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study, a
community walk audit was held on February 22,
2025 starting from Saint John’s Medical Center.

A walk audit is a community-based assessment
of the conditions along a street. Seventeen
members of the public and key stakeholders
walked a portion of Santa Monica Blvd to discuss
safety concerns and opportunities. The walk
audit included residents, students at McKinley
Elementary, hospital employees, and City staff.

THE GOALS OF THE EVENT WERE TO: • Gather feedback from the community about the overall experience and “issue areas” along
Santa Monica Blvd.
• Identify potential enhancements to improve
safety for people waking, rolling, driving, and
taking transit.

Participants were assigned to an East or West
group and provided an associated “workbook.”
The front of the workbook provided space for
general reflections at each intersection along
with discussion questions. The back provided a
checklist of priorities for each intersection and a
map for sketching.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

THE WORKBOOK

PROVIDED ROOM FOR

GENERAL REFLECTIONS
ON THE FRONT....
.... AND SPECIFIC

RECOMMENDATIONS AND
SKETCHES ON THE FLIP SIDE.

WALK AUDITORS WERE ENCOURAGED TO TAKE
NOTES IN THE WORKBOOK ALONG THE WAY. 20TH ST 18TH ST
16TH ST

WEST EAST
oPTIONAL: SKETCH YOUR THOUGHTS oPTIONAL: SKETCH YOUR THOUGHTS oPTIONAL: SKETCH YOUR THOUGHTS Crosswalk / Visibility
Enhancements
Signal or HAWK Signal
Improved ADA Access
SELECT UP TO 3 PRIORITIES:

Street Lighting
Speed Signage
Other
Crosswalk / Visibility
Enhancements
Signal or HAWK Signal
Pedestrian Refuge Islands
Improved ADA Access
SELECT UP TO 3 PRIORITIES:

Street Lighting
Speed Signage
Other
Bus Stop Improvements
Bus Only Lane
Crosswalk / Visibility
Enhancements
Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI) or scramble
crosswalk
SELECT UP TO 3 PRIORITIES:

Signal Improvements
Improved ADA Access
Street Lighting
Speed Signage
Other

CORRIDOR-WIDE

COMMENTS

WHAT FEATURES WOULD MAKE TRAVELING ALONG
THE CORRIDOR SAFER AND MORE COMFORTABLE?

SANTA MONICA BLVD

SANTA MONICA BLVD SAFETY STUDY
FEBRUARY 22, 2024
NAME:

COMMUNITY

WALK AUDIT

WORKBOOK
WEST

WHAT WOULD MAKE THE EXPERIENCE BETTER FOR
YOU?
IMAGINE CATChING THE BUS FROM THIS
INTERSECTION. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE BUS
STOP, ROUTES, aND TIMELINESS? N
N
N
18TH ST
2 FLIP OVER FOR THE MAP
& RECOMMENDATIONS!
20TH ST
1 WHAT IS YOUR EXPERIENCE CROSSING THE STREET
AT THIS INTERSECTION?
WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU FEEL SAFER HERE?
16TH ST
3 WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU FEEL SAFER HERE?

WHAT IS YOUR EXPERIENCE AS A PEDESTRIAN
HERE, ALONG THE SIDEWALK?

FLIP OVER FOR THE MAP
& RECOMMENDATIONS!

FLIP OVER FOR THE MAP
& RECOMMENDATIONS!
20TH ST

SANTA MONICA BLVD
18TH ST

SANTA MONICA BLVD
16TH ST

SANTA MONICA
BLVD
20TH ST
18TH ST
16TH ST

Street Lighting
Speed Signage
Other
Crosswalk / Visibility
Enhancements
Signal or HAWK Signal
Pedestrian Refuge Islands
Improved ADA Access
SELECT UP TO 3 PRIORITIES:

Street Lighting
Speed Signage
Other
Bus Stop Improvements
Bus Only Lane
Crosswalk / Visibility
Enhancements
Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI) or scramble
crosswalk
SELECT UP TO 3 PRIORITIES:

Signal Improvements
Improved ADA Access
Street Lighting
Speed Signage
Other

CORRIDOR-WIDE

COMMENTS

WHAT FEATURES WOULD MAKE TRAVELING ALONG
THE CORRIDOR SAFER AND MORE COMFORTABLE?

SANTA MONICA BLVD

SANTA MONICA BLVD SAFETY STUDY
FEBRUARY 22, 2024
NAME:

COMMUNITY

WALK AUDIT

WORKBOOK
WEST

WHAT IS YOUR EXPERIENCE AS A PEDESTRIAN
HERE, ALONG THE SIDEWALK?

FLIP OVER FOR THE MAP
& RECOMMENDATIONS!

FLIP OVER FOR THE MAP
& RECOMMENDATIONS!
20TH ST

SANTA MONICA BLVD
18TH ST

SANTA MONICA BLVD
16TH ST

SANTA MONICA
BLVD

THE WORKBOOK

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

BERGAMOT STATION

ARTS CENTER
10TH S
T
11TH ST12TH ST

EUCLID ST
14TH ST15TH ST17TH ST19TH ST
21ST ST

CLOVERFIELD BLVD

PARK DRIVE
25TH ST
26TH ST

PRINCETON ST

HARVARD ST

YALE ST

STANFORD ST

BERKELEY ST

FRANKLIN ST

CENTINELA AVE

CROSSROADS

ELEMENTARY
16TH ST
18TH ST
20TH ST
23RD ST
26TH ST

CLOVERFIELD BLVD

START/FINISH

WEST GROUP EAST GROUP

SANTA MONICA BLVD

SELECTED WALK AUDIT STOP (WEST GROUP)

SELECTED WALK AUDIT STOP (EAST GROUP)
chELSEA AVE

THE ROUTE
THE WEST GROUP STOPPED AT 20TH ST, 18TH ST, AND 16TH ST.

THE EAST GROUP STOPPED AT CLOVERFIELD BLVD, CHELSEA AVE, AND 26TH ST.

CHOOSING STOP LOCATIONS
All stop locations were within 1/2 mile of the starting location (St. John’s Health Center) to make the walk accessible to all ages. Stop locations also needed to be identified as a priority through significant feedback from Touchpoint #1 or identified as a safety priority in the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) or Technical Walk Audit, or as a Vision Zero Priority Intersection.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Sketches noted lack of shade, loud noise, high
speeds, and desire for scramble crosswalks.

Sketches indicated desire for turn restrictions
for vehicles.

Sketches showed bulbouts and additional
crosswalks.

RESULTS WEST GROUP(7 PARTICIPANTS) 18TH ST 20TH ST 16TH ST

TOP THREE PRIORITIES
KEY THEMES At 16th St, walk auditors commented
about unsafe driver behaviors (e.g. how cars
creep into the street to try and see oncoming
traffic or cars often do not stop). The lack of
visibility for cars on 16th St was also noted. One
walk auditor mentioned that they were a victim
of a hit-and-run at this intersection in 1971.

Recommendations for this location included
landscaping, lighting, curb extensions, better stop
controls, and a wider refuge island, among others.

TOP THREE PRIORITIES

TOP THREE PRIORITIES
Other*** (4), Crosswalk/Visibility Enhancements (4)
Bus Stop Improvements (2), Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI) or scramble crosswalks (2), Speed
Signage (2)
Bus Only Lane (1)
Signal or HAWK Signal (4)
Pedestrian Refuge Island (3)
Crosswalk/Visibility Enhancements (2).

Street Lighting (2), and Other (2)**
* “Other” at 16th St: turn restriction, curb extensions, no left turn, bus only lane. ** “Other” at 18th St: curb extensions, vertical elements on the center line, no left turns, median installation. *** “Other” at 20th St: Bike lanes, more shade, traffic calming, building setbacks, tree planters.

Crosswalk/Visibility Enhancements (4)
Signal or HAWK Signal (4)
Street Lighting (2), Other (2)*
KEY THEMES Walk auditors characterized this
intersection as “noisy” and “exposed” due to
speeding cars and dangerous driving behavior.

They identified this specific intersection as
“too dangerous” to cross for children. Curb
extensions, additional crosswalks, safety
signage, and more trees were requested to slow
down traffic and increase pedestrian safety and
comfort.

KEY THEMES Many notes from walk auditors
reflected on the lack of shelter at the bus stop
on 20th St, as well as a dangerous right turn
from 20th St onto Santa Monica Blvd and swiftly
moving vehicles. Walk auditors requested more
shade trees, a bus only lane, a larger shelter,
turn restrictions for cars, speed reduction, and
more consistent sidewalk maintenance.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Sketches noting desire for crosswalk at Chelsea
Ave.

No sketches for this intersection.

No sketches for this intersection.
* “Other” at Cloverfield Blvd: No right turn on red, red light signage, traffic speed reduction. ** “Other” at Chelsea Ave: Pedestrian signal, lighting during the day, left turn restrictions, repainting street lines, traffic calming. *** “Other” at 26th St: Leading pedestrian intervals, shorter curb, removal of on-street parking, scramble crosswalk, repainting street lines.

EAST GROUP(10 PARTICIPANTS)

CLOVERFIELD BLVD

CHELSEAAVE
26THST

TOP THREE PRIORITIES
KEY THEMES At Cloverfield Blvd, walk auditors
described the intersection as “hostile,” “scary,”
and “very inhospitable.” They noted proximity
of cars to pedestrians, and discussed potential
methods for traffic calming including narrower
streets and wider sidewalks. Walk auditors
requested a buffer between the sidewalk and
street, a new bike lane, no right turn on red
restrictions, and red light cameras for cars.

TOP THREE PRIORITIES

TOP THREE PRIORITIES
Crosswalk Enhancements/Other*** (6)
Bus Only Lane (5)
Speed Signage (4)
New Crosswalk (9)
Other** (5)
Speed Signage (4)
Crosswalk/Visibility Enhancements (8)
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) (5)
Signal Improvements (3), Other* (3)
KEY THEMES Walk auditors reflected on the high
vehicular speeds at Chelsea Ave as well as the
long distances between crosswalks. They noted a
desire for new crosswalks, improved landscaping
on sidewalks, a buffer between the sidewalk and
street, and better sychronization between traffic
signals. Traffic speeds continue to be a major
concern for walk auditors.

KEY THEMES While walk auditors appreciated the
timeliness of the bus, they noted that the shelter is
lacking shade, shelter, and landscaping. They also
pointed out the curbs direct users into the street
rather than the crosswalks. There were requests
for a dedicated bus lane, improved bus station
amenities, automatic walk signals, and a protected
left turn for drivers. Many unsafe driver behaviors
were noted at this location.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Walk auditors highlighted significant
safety concerns for pedestrians at
many of the intersections visited.

Visibility challenges also result in
cars pulling into crosswalks to see
oncoming traffic.

Consider:
• Scramble crosswalks.
• Pedestrian refuge islands.

There were many concerns regarding
high vehicle speeds that create unsafe
conditions for pedestrians. Fast
moving traffic also makes waiting for
the bus uncomfortable.

Consider:
• Slowing down cars (through design
and posted speeds).
• Narrow vehicle lanes.
• Speed signage.

Based on the auditors’ discussion and notes from the workbooks, several overall concerns and safety priorities were identified for Santa Monica Blvd.

Recommendations are summarized below, organized by key themes:

DESIGN FOR SLOWER VEHICLE
SPEEDS

FURTHER SEPARATE CARS AND

PEDESTRIANS

IMPROVE SIGNAL TIMING

FOR PEDESTRIANS
The walk audit revealed that long wait
times at signalized intersections can
lead to risky pedestrian behavior, such
as crossing without a walk signal.

Drivers also frequently attempt to
turn right in front of pedestrians,
creating unsafe crossing conditions.

Consider:
• Leading pedestrian intervals.
• Pedestrian walk signal without
having to press a button.

A need for greater separation between
pedestrians and vehicle traffic was
identified to enhance safety and
comfort while walking.

Consider:
• Wider sidewalks.
• Buffers between the street and
the sidewalk.

OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS

MAKE CROSSING SAFER

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

EVENT PHOTOS
Walking, Crossing, Observing!

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

EVENT PHOTOS
Notetaking and Discussion!

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

COUMMUNITY OUTREACH
TOUCHPOINT #3

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study
Engagement Touchpoint #3
September 6, 2025

SANTA MONICA BLVD
SAFETY STUDY:

OPEN HOUSE

SUMMARY

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

THE EVENT
As part of the Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study,
an open house was held at the Santa Monica
Family YMCA on September 6th, 2025. The open
house showcased draft conceptual designs for
14 intersections as well as draft corridor-wide
improvements. 62 members of the public attended
the open house to discuss the designs and
provide feedback, and they were free to choose
the intersections they wanted to comment on.

We heard from a wide array of residents including
families, students, and City Council members.

THE GOALS OF THE EVENT WERE TO:
• Gather feedback from the community
about proposed designs and corridor-wide
improvements.
• Share information about the study and next
steps.

Participants were provided a “Route Map” that
guided them through 14 intersections. The
map provided space for refl ections at each
intersection, with an option to mark whether they
“liked the design” or “had comments.” The back of
the map provided additional space to comment on
corridor-wide improvements.
improvements. 62 members of the public attended
provide feedback, and they were free to choose
the intersections they wanted to comment on.

We heard from a wide array of residents including
Share information about the study and next
intersection, with an option to mark whether they
“liked the design” or “had comments.” The back of
the map provided additional space to comment on

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

THE ROUTE MAP
E
N
d
START LINCOLN bLvd 10TH ST

PRINCETON ST
15TH ST
11TH ST
14TH ST
16TH ST 18TH ST

STANFORD ST

CHELSEA AVE
26Th ST

FRANKLIN ST
6TH ST

ENGLISH

I LIKE THIS DESIGN

I HAVE COMMENTS

I LIKE THIS DESIGN

I HAVE COMMENTS

I LIKE THIS DESIGN

I HAVE COMMENTS

I LIKE THIS DESIGN

I HAVE COMMENTS

I LIKE THIS DESIGN

I HAVE COMMENTS

I LIKE THIS DESIGN

I HAVE COMMENTS

I LIKE THIS DESIGN

I HAVE COMMENTS

I LIKE THIS DESIGN

I LIKE THIS DESIGN I HAVE COMMENTS

I HAVE COMMENTS

I LIKE THIS DESIGN

I HAVE COMMENTS

I LIKE THIS DESIGN

I HAVE COMMENTS

I LIKE THIS DESIGN

I HAVE COMMENTS

I LIKE THIS DESIGN

I HAVE COMMENTS

I LIKE THIS DESIGN

I HAVE COMMENTS
19TH ST
14TH ST WALK AND RIDE

SANTA MONICA BLVD
HOW TO 1 Find the street sign of the
intersections that interest you.

Review the draft designs and
proposed improvements.
2 If you like the proposed design,
check the “I Like This Design” circle.

I LIKE THIS DESIGN

I HAVE COMMENTS
3 If you have comments regarding
the proposed designs, write them
in the box.
4 Add your thoughts about the other
corridor-wide improvements in the
comment section to the right.

FILL IN YOUR ROUTE MAP
Hand in your route map to submit
your feedback!
5 MY ROUTE MAP

SANTA MONICA BLVD

SAFETY STUDY

OPEN HOUSE
NAME:

EMAIL (OPTIONAL):

CORRIDOR-WIDE

IMPROVEMENTS
• Would the recommended improvements
make you feel safer walking or taking
transit on Santa Monica Blvd?
• How would these improvements impact
dierent street users?
• Are there additional improvements you
would like to see along the corridor?
Corridor-wide improvements include
low-cost street enhancements that are
recommended along the entire corridor, from
Ocean Ave to Centinela Ave. These systemic
improvements are shown at the last station.
cOMMENTS

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

THE ROUTE MAP

ALLOWED SPACE FOR

COMMENTS AT EACH
INTERSECTION.

PARTICIPANTS WERE

ENCOURAGED TO

PROVIDE FEEDBACK

ON CORRIDOR-WIDE
IMPROVEMENTS.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

THE BOARDS

DESCRIPTION OF

PROPOSED SAFETY

ENHANCEMENTS

ADDITIONAL COLLISION

DATA AND PRIOR

COMMUNITY FEEDBACK

AXONOMETRIC VIEW

OF DRAFT DESIGNS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

RESULTS
6TH ST - 14TH ST KEY NOTES Feedback on 6th St was largely supportive of the proposed scramble
crosswalk and curb extensions. Additional
suggestions included reducing the speed
limit to 20 mph, shortening cycle lengths,
and addressing poor sidewalk conditions.

KEY NOTES Comments on Lincoln Blvd
demonstrated strong support for No Right
Turn on Red (NRTOR) and upgrading curb
ramps to be directional. Other feedback
included requests for pedestrian buttons
and motion sensors for crosswalks, and one
concern about losing the right-turn lane
from the proposed bus bulbout. KEY NOTES On 10th St, participants suggested raised crosswalks and speed
bumps to help increase visibility of
pedestrians and slow vehicles. They also
suggested adding crosswalks in all four
directions. Participants appreciated the
hardened centerlines.

KEY NOTES There was strong support for
moving the bus stop to the far-side of the
intersection at 11th St. Many participants
suggested adding NRTOR and Leading
Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) to provide
additional protection for pedestrians, and
protected bike lanes or a dedicated bus lane.

KEY NOTES Participants made repeated
requests for NRTOR at 14th St. Comments
also included requests for raised crosswalks,
concrete bollards, pedestrian sensors, and
shade at the relocated bus stop.

FEEDBACK BREAKDOWN

FEEDBACK BREAKDOWN
I like this design (12)
I like this design (9)
I like this design (9)
I like this design (9)
I like this design (10)
I have comments (4)
I have comments (6)
I have comments (8)
I have comments (4)
I have comments (5)
I like this design and
I have comments (2)
I like this design and
I have comments (1)
I like this design and
I have comments (2)
I like this design and
I have comments (2)
6TH ST
14TH ST

LINCOLN BLVD
11TH ST
10TH ST

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) KEY NOTES Comments on 15th St included
desire for raised crosswalks, crosswalks in
all four directions, and a pedestrian refuge
to address the wide street. Additional
suggestions included restricting left turns
for vehicles and reducing parking.

KEY NOTES Feedback on 16th St
included requests for raised crosswalks
and crosswalks in all four directions.

Participants appreciated the hardened
centerlines, but suggested stronger safety
measures such as a tra
ic light and a midstreet pedestrian refuge island.

KEY NOTES On 19th St, participants
requested raised crosswalks and
crosswalks in all four directions to improve
the visibility of pedestrians. One comment
noted that the proposed curb extension
could cause vehicles to veer suddenly.

KEY NOTES Participants were very excited
about the designs proposed on Chelsea
Ave, particularly the pedestrian refuge
island, crosswalk, and bike markings.

Concerns were raised about the removal
of the center turn lane. Participants also
noted the importance of ensuring that push
buttons are accessible for people biking.

FEEDBACK BREAKDOWN

FEEDBACK BREAKDOWN
15TH 16TH
19TH

CHELSEA
I like this design (10)
I like this design (9)
I like this design (10)
I like this design (7)
I have comments (7)
I have comments (5)
KEY NOTES Participants appreciated the
directional curb ramps, curb extensions,
and fl ashing beacons. Comments
suggested adding raised crosswalks and
crosswalks in all four directions. One
participant raised concerns about the
e
ectiveness of hardened centerlines and
stated that they would be an obstacle for
bikes and motorcycles.

FEEDBACK BREAKDOWN 18TH
I have comments (3)
I have comments (4)
I like this design and
I have comments (2)
I like this design and
I have comments (1) I like this design and
I have comments (3)

RESULTS
15TH ST - CHELSEA AVE
I like this design (8)
I have comments (6)
I like this design and
I have comments (1)
15TH ST

CHELSEA AVE
16TH ST
19TH ST
18TH ST

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) KEY NOTES On 26th St, participants were
supportive of the far-side bus stops with
bulbouts. One participant noted they use
the route daily. Participants requested
raised crosswalks, NRTOR, and reduced
parking.

KEY NOTES There was strong support for
the pedestrian refuge islands and fl ashing
beacons on Princeton St. Additional
requests were made for raised crosswalks,
crosswalks in all four directions, hardened
centerlines, and speed bumps at stop signs.

KEY NOTES Participants were excited about
the proposed pedestrian refuge islands and
fl ashing beacons on Stanford St. Comments
included crosswalks in all four directions,
raised crosswalks, concrete bollards, and
elimination of a drive lane.

KEY NOTES Participants expressed support
for the proposed bus lane. Suggestions
included adding landscaped medians or
bioswales, crosswalks in all four directions,
raised crosswalks, and solid bollards. One
participant stated that they would favor
travel lanes over pedestrian refuge islands.

LOCATION-SPECIFIC COMMENTS (SELECTED)
• How to enforce NRTOR if people ignore it
at Wilshire/Broadway?
• Absence of medians as half-way point is
insu
icient for students at McKinley to
cross SM Blvd independently.

KEY THEMES

FEEDBACK BREAKDOWN

FEEDBACK BREAKDOWN
26TH FEEDBACK BREAKDOWN
I like this design (6)
I like this design (8)
I like this design (8)
I like this design (8)
I have comments (8)
I have comments (6)
I have comments (4)
I have comments (5)
I like this design and
I have comments (1)
I like this design and
I have comments (1)

RESULTS
26TH - FRANKLIN ST
& CORRIDOR-WIDE

MAKE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS SAFER

REDUCE VEHICLE SPEEDS AND INCREASE

ENFORCEMENT

PRIORITIZE TRANSIT, BIKES, AND

PEDESTRIANS OVER CARS

ADD CROSSWALKS IN FOUR DIRECTIONS
26TH ST

CORRIDOR-WIDE

PRINCETON ST

FRANKLIN ST

STANFORD ST

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

EVENT PHOTOS
Some of the friendly faces we saw at the open house!

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

EVENT PHOTOS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

COUMMUNITY OUTREACH

COMMUNITY SURVEY SUMMARY

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BLVD SAFETY STUDY
APRIL 2025

COMMUNITY
SURVEY

SUMMARY

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

CONTENTS
1 1. ABOUT THE SURVEY • Goals & How It Worked • Timeframe & Promotion

2. OVERALL RESULTS • Total Engagement • Trends by Location • Trends by Theme

3. KEY FINDINGS • Upvotes & Downvotes • Key Themes • Priority Intersections

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) 2 The map-based survey
was hosted on the city’s
website and could be accessed
from various devices (computer,
phone, tablet).

Community members were invited to
choose a category and drop a pin at any
location along the corridor to share their
thoughts. They could also peruse the map,
upvote or downvote comments, and reply to
comments posted by others.

GOALS
The survey aimed to:
• Gather place-specific feedback
about issues and opportunities
along Santa Monica Blvd.
• Complement the project’s
ongoing in-person community
engagement touchpoints with
a virtual, easy-to-use tool
for the general public.

HOW IT
WORKED

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) 3 TIMEFRAME & PROMOTION

THE SURVEY WAS PROMOTED
THROUGH:
• QR codes included on materials used in
engagement touchpoints, including “Light
Up the Night” pop-up and community walk
audit.
• “Take the Friendly Road” newsletter.
• City of Santa Monica social media
(Instagram, Facebook, Twitter).
• Presentations at Douglas Park, McKinley
Elementary School and neighborhood
association meetings (Mid-City Neighbors,
Pico Neighborhood Association, Santa
Monica Downtown Neighborhood
Association).
• Door-knocking with.....
• Postcards and mailers to......

OCTOBER 2024
Survey launched the
same day as “Light
Up the Night” Pop-Up
Event.

APRIL 2025
Survey closed to
coincide with the
development of
countermeasures.

ONGOING PROMOTION
City: These were listed in the
engagement update from
November. Can you confirm
if these were also promoting
the survey?

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) 4 TOTAL ENGAGEMENT

DIFFICULT

CROSSING
(108)

BROKEN/INCOMPLETE
SIDEWALKS (5)
SPEEDING (60)

SOMETHING
ELSE (77)
Double
Parking: 10
DOUBLE
PARKING (9)

POOR BUS STOP
ZONE (17)

CORNER SIGHT
ISSUES (19)

DIFFICULT

TURNING
MOVEMENT (25)

TRAFFIC/

CONGESTION
(20)

TOTAL COMMENTS PER CATEGORY
349

MOST FREQUENT
CATEGORIES:
• “Difficult crossings” (31% of
comments).
• Something else,” including bicyclerelated improvements and bus-only lanes (22% of comments).
• “Speeding” (17% of comments).
*Some comments were removed from the analysis
because they were recommendations for streets
other than Santa Monica Blvd, or were comments
about unrelated topics.

Relevant comments were
received on the map*
700+
People visited the
survey page

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) 5 TRENDS BY LOCATION

THE MAPS ON THE FOLLOWING

PAGES SHOW THE SPATIAL

DISTRIBUTION OF EACH

RELEVANT COMMENT CATEGORY

ALONG THE CORRIDOR, FROM
OCEAN AVE TO CENTINELA AVE.

THESE MAPS:
• Reveal trends in the data.
• Indicate areas of priority for each type of
issue or improvement.

In order to highlight specific categories,
“Something Else” is not shown on the maps.

Systemic (corridor-wide) comments and bus
lane comments are also not shown since they
do not pertain to specific intersections. They are
instead covered in the Key Findings sections.
11TH ST12TH S
T

EUCLID ST
14TH ST15TH ST16TH ST17TH ST18TH ST
SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD 19TH ST
20TH ST
21ST ST
23RD ST
chELSEA AVE PARK DRIVE
25TH ST
26TH ST

PRINCETON ST

HARVARD ST

YALE ST

STANFORD ST

BERKELEY ST
3 1 3 2 4 1

NUMBER OF

COMMENTS

SANTA MONICA BLVD

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) 6 TRENDS BY LOCATION
There are several “hot spots” where corner sight issues came up, notably at 26th St, between 23rd and Chelsea Ave, and at 16th St. 3RD ST 4TH ST 5TH ST 6TH ST 7TH ST LINCOLN BLVD 9TH ST 10TH ST 11TH ST 12TH ST EUCLID ST 14TH ST 15TH ST 16TH ST 17TH ST 18TH ST SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD 19TH ST
20TH ST
21ST ST
23RD ST
chELSEA AVE PARK DRIVE
25TH ST
26TH ST

PRINCETON ST

HARVARD ST

YALE ST

STANFORD ST

BERKELEY ST

FRANKLIN ST

CENTINELA AVE

OCEAN AVE
2ND ST
1 2 3 1 3 2 4 1

CORNER SIGHT ISSUES

BROKEN/INCOMPLETE SIDEWALKS
Broken/incomplete sidewalks were highlighted between Ocean Ave and 2nd St, 3rd and 4th St, 23rd and Chelsea Ave, and Chelsea Ave and 25th St. 3RD ST 4TH ST 5TH ST 6TH ST 7TH ST LINCOLN BLVD 9TH ST 10TH ST 11TH ST 12TH ST EUCLID ST 14TH ST 15TH ST 16TH ST 17TH ST 18TH ST SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD 19TH ST
20TH ST
21ST ST
23RD ST
chELSEA AVE PARK DRIVE
25TH ST
26TH ST

PRINCETON ST

HARVARD ST

YALE ST

STANFORD ST

BERKELEY ST

FRANKLIN ST

CENTINELA AVE

OCEAN AVE
2ND ST
1 1 1 1

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) 7 3RD ST4TH ST5TH ST6TH ST7TH ST

LINCOLN BLVD
9TH ST
10TH ST11TH ST12TH ST

EUCLID ST
14TH ST15TH ST16TH ST17TH ST18TH ST
SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD 19TH ST
20TH ST
21ST ST
23RD ST
chELSEA AVE PARK DRIVE
25TH ST
26TH ST

PRINCETON ST

HARVARD ST

YALE ST

STANFORD ST

BERKELEY ST

FRANKLIN ST

CENTINELA AVE

OCEAN AVE
2ND ST
1 2 1 1 1 2 1 5 4 3 4 3 2 3 4 3 4 3 5 3 3 10 5 5 7 5 3 4 1 1 1
1 TRENDS BY LOCATION 3RD ST 4TH ST 5TH ST 6TH ST 7TH ST LINCOLN BLVD 9TH ST 10TH ST 11TH ST 12TH ST EUCLID ST 14TH ST 15TH ST 16TH ST 17TH ST 18TH ST SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD 19TH ST
20TH ST
21ST ST
23RD ST
chELSEA AVE PARK DRIVE
25TH ST
26TH ST

PRINCETON ST

HARVARD ST

YALE ST

STANFORD ST

BERKELEY ST

FRANKLIN ST

CENTINELA AVE

OCEAN AVE
2ND ST
1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 1

DIFFICULT TURNING MOVEMENT
Difficult crossings was a very popular category throughout the entire corridor. The intersections with the highest number of comments were Chelsea Ave and Princeton St.

Several areas came to the forefront for the difficult turning movement category, including 26th St and 15th St.

DIFFICULT CROSSINGS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) 8 TRENDS BY LOCATION 3RD ST 4TH ST 5TH ST 6TH ST 7TH ST LINCOLN BLVD 9TH ST 10TH ST 11TH ST 12TH ST EUCLID ST 14TH ST 15TH ST 16TH ST 17TH ST 18TH ST SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD 19TH ST
20TH ST
21ST ST
23RD ST
chELSEA AVE PARK DRIVE
25TH ST
26TH ST

PRINCETON ST

HARVARD ST

YALE ST

STANFORD ST

BERKELEY ST

FRANKLIN ST

CENTINELA AVE

OCEAN AVE
2ND ST
1 1 1 3 3 3RD ST 4TH ST 5TH ST 6TH ST 7TH ST LINCOLN BLVD 9TH ST 10TH ST 11TH ST 12TH ST EUCLID ST 14TH ST 15TH ST 16TH ST 17TH ST 18TH ST SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD 19TH ST
20TH ST
21ST ST
23RD ST
chELSEA AVE PARK DRIVE
25TH ST
26TH ST

PRINCETON ST

HARVARD ST

YALE ST

STANFORD ST

BERKELEY ST

FRANKLIN ST

CENTINELA AVE

OCEAN AVE
2ND ST
1 2 2 2 2 4 4

DOUBLE PARKING

POOR BUS STOP ZONE
There were three comments about double parking at 20th St, and between 23rd and Chelsea Ave.

Poor bus stop zones were noted four times between Euclid and 14th St, 25th and 26th St, and at Centinela Ave.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) 9 3RD ST4TH ST5TH ST6TH ST7TH ST

LINCOLN BLVD
9TH ST
10TH ST11TH ST12TH ST

EUCLID ST
14TH ST15TH ST16TH ST17TH ST18TH ST
SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD 19TH ST
20TH ST
21ST ST
23RD ST
chELSEA AVE PARK DRIVE
25TH ST
26TH ST

PRINCETON ST

HARVARD ST

YALE ST

STANFORD ST

BERKELEY ST

FRANKLIN ST

CENTINELA AVE

OCEAN AVE
2ND ST
1 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 1 5 2 3 5 1 1 2
3RD ST4TH ST5TH ST6TH ST7TH ST

LINCOLN BLVD
9TH ST
10TH ST11TH ST12TH ST

EUCLID ST
14TH ST15TH ST16TH ST17TH ST18TH ST
SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD 19TH ST
20TH ST
21ST ST
23RD ST
chELSEA AVE PARK DRIVE
25TH ST
26TH ST

PRINCETON ST

HARVARD ST

YALE ST

STANFORD ST

BERKELEY ST

FRANKLIN ST

CENTINELA AVE

OCEAN AVE
2ND ST
1 1 1 2 2 4 3 2

TRENDS BY LOCATION

SPEEDING

TRAFFIC/CONGESTION
There were many comments about speeding, especially on the eastern portion of the corridor, between 23rd St and Princeton St.

Traffic and congestion-related comments were noted in the downtown area, at Lincoln Blvd, and between 20th St and 25th St.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) 10 TRENDS BY LOCATION
Comments are organized by location on the bar chart, below.

The intersection with the most feedback was 26th St, with 25 comments across many categories. Many comments focused
on the eastern portion of the corridor (20th St to 26th St), as well as 17th St and Lincoln Blvd. Some comments related to specific segments of the street and these segmentrelated comments are represented by the colorful bars left of the street names. The 78 systemic (corridor-wide) comments are not shown in this intersection-specific
chart, but are summarized on page 13.
*Note that map pins were associated with the nearest intersection.

RELEVANT COMMENTS BY CATEGORY*
:
(: (
4: 4

'5%21'
1'$$%2-

4/
4

4

43
4:
(&
(
(.
(/
(

(

(4
((
(:
&

.
/

3
4

%2,-2!'%
'$$%218)-1),1%2,-2!'%1*2"1',!9'%2#1,+ ,'"
5-1

',%
!

!
!

!
'5
'',1
'$
)
,

CENTINELA

FRANKLIN

BERKELEY

STANFORD
YALE

HARVARD

PRINCETON
26TH
25TH

CHELSEA
24TH

CLOVERFIELD
23RD
20TH
19TH
18TH
17TH
16TH
15TH
14TH
EUCLID
12TH
11TH
1OTH
9TH

LINCOLN
7TH
6TH
5TH
4TH
3RD
2ND
OCEAN Broken/Incomplete Sidewalks
Bus Lane
Corner Sight Issues
Difficult Crossings
Difficult Turning Movement
Double Parking
Poor Bus Stop Zone
Speeding
Traffic/Congestion
Something Else
0 5 10 15 20 25

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) 11 TRENDS BY THEME
This chart shows the 15 most frequently mentioned phrases from all the relevant comments received. Common and
location-specific words (like “Santa Monica” or “SM Blvd”) were removed to focus on meaningful themes. Similar
phrases were grouped to better understand key concerns
raised by the community. Pedestrian crossings were
commonly mentioned. Safety enhancements like HAWK
signals, curb extensions, and marked crosswalks, were
all very common recommendations. Also included in
the top 15 phrases were bus lanes and bike lane-related comments.

TRENDS BY THEME
HAWK Signal
Right Turn
Traffic Signal Red Light
Add Curb
Bus Stop
Marked Crosswalk
Protected Bike Lane
Left Turn
Make Safer
Curb Extension
Bus Lane
Bike Lane
Pedestrian Crossing

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) 12 UPVOTES & DOWNVOTES
Respondents could upvote or downvote existing comments. The comments with the highest number of upvotes are paraphrased below. The top comment pertained to a bus lane, followed by a comment about the intersection with Chelsea Ave.

Many other comments with a lot of upvotes mentioned difficult crossings, for example on Franklin Blvd and Lincoln Blvd, or driver behavior. 34 UPVOTES
• Whether or not we’re willing to be bold enough
to consider a bus lane, I’m going to say it: a bus
lane on Santa Monica Blvd would be a great step
forward. While there is little congestion, cars still
slow buses down.
30 UPVOTES
• Add a traffic signal at Chelsea Ave for a bikeway
between Park Dr/Broadway and 24th/Idaho that
uses Chelsea Ave.
25 UPVOTES
• The pedestrian crossing at 10th St is important
for Santa Monica College and Kaiser, but it is
unmarked and uncontrolled. It should have a HAWK
signal or comparable signal and marked crosswalk.
• Delivery drivers and others tend to ignore
crosswalks and red curbs downtown (and
everywhere else, but it’s particularly noticeable in
busy areas like downtown). Curb extensions like
the quick-build ones on Wilshire Blvd would be a
good start.

A NOTE ON DOWNVOTES:

The comment with the highest number of
downvotes (4) was:
“Please add bike signals for the separated
bike lanes on the west side of Ocean, both
northbound and southbound... [Also] yield-topedestrians signage and markings are small, hard to see, and confusing with the main traffic
light”.

Overall, there were fewer downvotes than upvotes.

Many downvotes were added to recommendations
for removing a drive lane or carrying out a road
diet, which is reflective of disagreements in the
community over the idea of reducing the number
of drive lanes on Santa Monica Blvd.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) 13 KEY THEMES
Taking into account the comments that had the highest number of upvotes and the categories that came up the most frequently, key themes are paraphrased below:

Several respondents were interested
in a bus lane. At the same time, there
were some comments that were weary
of “slowing down traffic”. Suggestions
included: • Full-time bus lanes and transit
priority
.
• Reduced travel time for buses. • Enforcing no parking in bus lanes.

Speeding continues to be a concern
for many respondents. Suggestions
called for: • Traffic calming. • Narrower drive lanes • Wider sidewalks. • Reduced number of drive lanes.

DESIGN FOR SLOWER VEHICLE
SPEEDS

MAKE CROSSINGS MORE

PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY

IMPROVE BICYCLE

INFRASTRUCTURE
Even if bicycle infrastructure is not
proposed, it will be important to
ensure that bicycle connections to
and through the street are considered,
such as: • Bicycle signals. • Bicycle boxes.

Many respondents mentioned feeling
unsafe when crossing the street and
recommended enhancements at
intersections: • Scramble crossings. • Curb extensions. • Limiting left turns or right turns on a red signal.
• HAWK signals. • New crosswalks.

CONSIDER A BUS LANE

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) 14 PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS
The top 3 categories for each of the 15 Priority Intersections identified for the Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study are listed below and on the following page.
6TH ST
• Difficult crossings (2).
• Corner sight issues (2).
• Something else (2) including.
bicycle traffic signals, curb
extensions, and a scramble
crosswalk.

LINCOLN BLVD
• Difficult crossings (5).
• Speeding (3).
• Poor bus stop zone (2).
• Traffic congestion (2).
10TH ST
• Difficult crossings (3).
11TH ST
• Difficult crossings (4).
• Poor bus stop zone (2).
• Difficult turning movement (1).
• Something else (1) including
bicycle traffic signals.
14TH ST
• Difficult crossings (3).
• Poor bus stop zone (2).
• Speeding (1).
15TH ST
• Difficult crossings (4).
• Difficult turning movement (3).
• Speeding (1).
16TH ST
• Corner sight issues (3).
• Difficult crossings (3).
• Something else (3) including traffic
circle, and traffic signal with left
hand turn light.
18TH ST
• Difficult crossings (4).
19TH ST
• Difficult crossings (3).

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) 15 PRIORITY INTERSECTIONS
20TH ST
• Something else (7) including traffic
circle, no right turn on red, curb
extensions, widened sidewalk.
• Difficult crossings (5).
• Double parking (3).
21ST ST
• No comments specific to this
intersection. However, traffic
congestion from delivery trucks/
passenger loading vehicles was
noted for the 21st - 23rd segment.
22ND ST
• No comments specific to this
intersection. However, traffic
congestion from delivery trucks/
passenger loading vehicles was
noted for the 21st - 23rd segment.

CHELSEA AVE
• Difficult crossings (10).
• Something else (4) including traffic
light, pedestrian bridge, traffic
filters or diverters, and speed
bumps.
• Traffic/congestion (3).
26TH ST
• Difficult crossings (5).
• Speeding (5).
• Corner sight issues (4).
• Poor bus stop zone (4).

PRINCETON ST
• Difficult crossings (7).
• Difficult turning movement (2).
• Something else (1) regarding
unsafe driving behavior from the
McDonald’s drive-through.

STANFORD AVE
• Difficult crossings (3).
• Difficult turning movement (1).

FRANKLIN BLVD
• Difficult crossings (4).

SYSTEMIC (CORRIDOR-WIDE)
• Something else (25) including bus
rapid transit lanes, road diet, right
turn on red restrictions, shade
trees, other amenities such as
garbage cans.
• Speeding (25).
• Difficult crossings (8).

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) APPENDIX b.

SAFETY ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SAFETY STUDY

SAFETY AND TRANSIT ANALYSIS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 1

MEMORANDUM
To: City of Santa Monica
From: Nelson\Nygaard
Date: February 27, 2025
Subject: Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis FINAL DRAFT This memo provides an analysis of crashes and transit operations along Santa Monica Boulevard between Ocean Avenue and Centinela Avenue as part of the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study. The corridor was identified as part of the city’s priority network to improve roadway safety due to high number of crashes, including crashes involved with active modes and crashes that occur after dark. This analysis focuses on vehicle speeds, transit operations, reported crash history and activity. It builds on the information documented in the walk audit conducted with participants from various city departments on November 21, 2024.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This section illuminates some of the notable findings of the analyses and offers some key challenges and opportunities for improvement along the Santa Monica Boulevard corridor.1 Key Findings
 Prioritize safety improvements at locations with the highest crash severity. The top three locations with the highest crash severity are listed below. Table 9 lists the top 15 intersections.
− Santa Monica Boulevard and 14th Street
− Santa Monica Boulevard and 16th Street
− Santa Monica Boulevard and Lincoln Boulevard
 83% of all crashes occur at intersections, with the remaining 17% occurring midblock.

Midblock crashes have a higher share of Property Damage Only (PDO) crashes (22%).

Safety improvements should focus on reducing crashes and crash severity at intersections.
1 For this analysis, a crash was classified as intersection-related if its recorded location (latitude and longitude) was within 50 feet of the intersection of two crossing street centerlines. Crashes occurring beyond 50 feet from any of these intersections were categorized as midblock crashes.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 2
 Bicycle and scooter crashes are overrepresented in serious injury crashes (55%) compared to all crashes (20%), and therefore safety improvements should support these users, including educational efforts to address high risk scooter and bike behaviors.
 Injury crashes occur more at unsignalized and signalized intersections compared to midblock locations. Safety improvements approaching intersections should be prioritized over midblock corridor changes.
 Failure to yield and speeding are the top two primary collision factors that result in injury crashes at intersections. Speeding and improper turning are the top collision factors at midblock locations. Improvements shall address these crash factors.  Many pedestrian crashes occur when a pedestrian is crossing at an intersection while a motor vehicle is making a left turn, at both signalized and unsignalized intersections. Consider ways to reduce conflicting movements. Examples include restricting left turns at intersections where this diversion would result in limited out of direction travel, elimination of permissive left turn signal phases at signalized intersections, or slowing turning speeds via centerline hardening or other methods.  Excessive distance between intersections with marked crosswalks can cause significant out of direction or crossings at locations without them. Consider increasing the frequency of marked crosswalks, with the appropriate supplements, along Santa Monica Boulevard.
 Seniors aged 66-75 and 76+ make up 23% of all pedestrians involved in injury crashes, a higher proportion than the 19% these two age groups represent in Santa Monica total population. Interventions can be focused where older adults live, and result in slower speeds, to reduce the severity of crashes when they do happen.  Crashes occur most frequently at signalized intersections, and injury severity is highest at unsignalized intersections; therefore, interventions at unsignalized intersections should be a priority.
 Consider increasing the frequency of tree maintenance to improve visibility of traffic control devices and efficacy of safety lighting at crosswalks.  Pedestrian-involved injury crashes occurring at night (including those under street lighting) account for 22% of all pedestrian-related injury crashes. Consider increasing pedestrian scale and street safety lighting for better night-time visibility and safety.

In addition to the safety findings, there may also be opportunities to improve the transit experience along the corridor based on the following observations:
 Buses travel at low speeds, averaging between 10 to 15 mph during morning (7 am to 10 am) and afternoon (4 pm to 7 pm) peak periods likely due to congestion during

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 3
peak commute times. Improvements to the Santa Monica Boulevard corridor could consider measures that improve bus speed and reliability.  The bus stop pairs at intersections with the highest ridership —each averaging over 200 daily boardings and alightings—are listed below. These stops are primarily served by Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Route 1 and LA Metro Route 4. Improvements should consider the pedestrian experience of riders, especially at high activity stops where transfers require crossing Santa Monica Boulevard, and ample waiting space for riders is needed.
− 3rd Street Promenade
− 4th Street
− 6th Street
− Lincoln Boulevard
− 20th Street
− 26th Street

ORGANIZATION OF THIS MEMO
This memo summarizes the following:

1. Document Review of relevant planning studies preceding this work

2. Description of the Roadway Characteristics along the corridor

3. Transit Operations – Analysis of transit speeds, service delays, and ridership for routes running along the corridor

4. Crash analysis – When, where, and why are crashes occurring

5. Synthesis of key findings from the analysis

6. Top 15 Ranked Intersections by weighted severity of reported crashes

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 4
1 DOCUMENT REVIEW
Santa Monica Boulevard is a key corridor with a demonstrated history of crashes. The City of Santa Monica is focused on improving safety, accessibility, and the overall travel experience for community members. This section provides a high-level summary of past planning efforts related to Santa Monica Boulevard.

Local Safety Roadway Plan (2022)
Overview
The Local Safety Roadway Plan (LSRP) analyzed citywide crash data from 2015 to 2019 to identify corridors and intersections with the highest number of crashes. The LSRP builds on the Vision Zero Program to eliminate serious injuries and fatalities.

Santa Monica Boulevard was identified as part of the priority network which is defined as streets that experience the top 50% of crashes. Key intersections along Santa Monica Boulevard with notable crash histories that were identified in the LRSP include:
 Intersections with the most crashes
− 6th Street
− 15th Street
− 16th Street
− 18th Street
 Intersections with the most crashes involving active modes (i.e., people walking, people on bikes, and people on scooters):
− 6th Street
− 15th Street
− 18th Street
− 20th Street
− 26th Street
 Intersections with the most crashes occurring after dark:
− 6th Street
− 16th Street
Recommendations
The LSRP recommended four emphasis areas with a set of strategies to address high crash volumes, including crashes with active modes and crashes occurring after dark. These emphasis areas are applicable to Santa Monica Boulevard.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 5
 Emphasis Area #1: Pedestrians crossing at intersections − Implement traffic calming measures in and around high pedestrian crash intersections.
− Enhance lighting in and around intersections.
 Emphasis Area #2: Crashes involving people bicycling and scootering − Complete the planned five-year protected bicycle network on Santa Monica Boulevard as defined in the City’s Bike Action Plan Amendment (2020).

Implement intersection treatments at 2nd Street, 6th Street, 11th Street, 14th Street, 20th Street, 26th Street, and Yale Street.
− Implement safety measures to address crashes that involve people who bike and scooter.
− Implement safety strategies that manage vehicular speeds in and around intersections.
− Add protected left turn signals at intersections with persistent left-turn-related bicycle and shared mobility involved crashes.
 Emphasis Area #3: Priority Network
− Accelerate ongoing traffic safety projects within the priority network. − Work with City departments, including Police and Fire, to address safety issues on the Priority Network through education and emergency response efforts. − Seek funding to conduct comprehensive safety evaluations on roadway segments identified as part of the priority network.
 Emphasis Area #4: Speed Management
− Develop a toolkit of safety countermeasures that reduce vehicular speeds. − Ensure speed limits are set appropriately and consistent with recent legislation (Assembly Bill No. 43).

Vision Zero Plan (2017)
Overview
The Vision Zero Plan identified near-term efforts to reduce fatal and severe injury crashes to zero by 2026. An analysis of the 11-year crash history from 2006 to 2016 identified high priority locations with high concentrations of crashes, including the Santa Monica Boulevard at Cloverfield Boulevard intersection.

Recommendations

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 6
The following five key areas along with a set of programs were identified as efforts to reduce fatal and serious injuries. These areas should be considered in recommending countermeasures to increase safety on Santa Monica Boulevard.  Data-driven decision-making: Develop a precise, data-drive decision-making system to identify locations of highest need and evaluate collision reports to assess the most effective safety countermeasures.
− Programs include obtaining all crash data, evaluating emergency response times, and mitigating speeds.
 Safer streets for all ages and abilities: Design and enforce street operations so that drivers travel at appropriate speeds where people are walking and biking. Build a network of neighborhood greenways, low-stress routes that parallel busier corridors, and connect to parks, schools, jobs, and services. Conduct regular enforcement operations targeting speeding and distracted driving.
− Programs include establishing a rapid deployment team, mitigating speeds, building the biking and pedestrian networks, identifying locations for street lighting, and implementing safe routes for schools, senior centers, hospitals, parks, and libraries.
 An engaged and alert community: Engage with community members to promote awareness about roadway safety.
− Programs include implementing Safe Routes for Seniors and Safe Routes for Schools and developing Vision Zero campaigns.
 Supporting policies: Ensure roadway safety is a prioritized metric in the City’s budget process, create policy to minimize construction impacts to road users, and advocate for safety.
− Programs include creating rules and procedures to minimize sidewalks and bike facility closures during construction and expanding neighborhood greenways.  Safer vehicles: Improve the safety of city fleet vehicles and their operators. Educate drivers about cyclists and the maneuvers they make to improve predictability and safety.
− Programs include implementing a bicycle friendly driver program for bus operators.

Pedestrian Action Plan (2016)
Overview
The Pedestrian Action Plan identified priority projects and programs to enhance safety and comfort for people walking. In this plan, the Santa Monica Boulevard corridor was identified

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 7
as a place that is difficult to walk across and along because of high vehicle speeds and multiple travel lanes, despite experiencing a high level of pedestrian activity due to commercial areas and schools.

Recommendations
The following projects were recommended for the Santa Monica Boulevard corridor.  Add left turn protected signal phases on Santa Monica Boulevard at Yale Street and Berkeley Street.
 Implement a streetscape project which includes curb extensions, crosswalks, advance stop bars, directional ramps, and pedestrian-oriented lighting on Santa Monica Boulevard between Lincoln Boulevard and 20th Street.
 Implement leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) at all signalized intersection along Santa Monica Boulevard.
 Implement a streetscape project which includes seven median islands, 32 curb extensions, two crosswalks, two advance stop bars, directional ramps, and pedestrian-oriented lighting on Santa Monica Boulevard between 20th Street and Centinela Avenue.
2 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
Santa Monica Boulevard is classified as a principal arterial roadway that runs in the general east-west direction between Ocean Avenue in Santa Monica and Sunset Boulevard in Hollywood. The study area, from Ocean Avenue to Centinela Avenue, is 2.4 miles long and has 20 signalized intersections (19 signalized intersections in City of Santa Monica and one signalized intersection in City of Los Angeles), 13 two-way stop control intersections, and 21 alleys.

Santa Monica Boulevard has four travel lanes, two in each direction, with intermittent turn lanes and on-street metered parking. Lane widths are narrower near Ocean Avenue and downtown Santa Monica (10-11’) and gradually widen toward Centinela Avenue (12-14’).

Block spacing along the corridor averages about 320 feet between intersections. Concrete sidewalks are provided on both sides of the street throughout the study area. The speed limit between Ocean Avenue and Lincoln Boulevard is 25 mph and between Lincoln Avenue and Centinela Avenue it is 30 mph. However, many drivers do not abide by speed limits and travel at higher speeds as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Speed Limits vs. 85th Percentile Speeds
Santa Monica Blvd Segments Speed Limits 85th Percentile Speeds Ocean Ave to Lincoln Blvd 25 mph 25 mph – 29 mph

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 8
Santa Monica Blvd Segments Speed Limits 85th Percentile Speeds Lincoln Blvd to Cloverfield Blvd 30 mph 30 mph – 34 mph Cloverfield Blvd to Centinela Ave 30 mph 35 mph – 49 mph Source: Engineering and Traffic Survey Results and Speed Limit Update, City of Santa Monica, July 29, 2024 Land uses along the corridor primarily consist of commercial and office spaces and public facilities such as libraries, hospitals, and schools. The corridor is served by the Big Blue Bus and LA Metro. While there are no bicycle facilities on Santa Monica Boulevard, the following bicycle routes intersect the corridor:
 Ocean Avenue –Protected bike lane on west side and northbound Class II bike lane on east side
 2nd Street – Northbound and southbound buffered bike lanes  6th Street - Northbound and southbound buffered bike lanes  7th Street - Northbound and southbound buffered bike lanes, no bike lane at intersection
 Lincoln Boulevard – Northbound and southbound bike route  11th Street - Northbound and southbound buffered bike lanes  14th Street - Northbound and southbound buffered bike lanes, no bike lane entering intersection
 17th Street - Northbound and southbound buffered bike lanes with green bike crossing pavement markings across the intersection
 Yale Street – Northbound and southbound bike route
3 TRANSIT OPERATIONS
Santa Monica Boulevard is served by several Big Blue Bus routes (primarily Route 1) and one LA Metro route that runs along the boulevard. Bus services run along intersecting streets as described below in Table 2.

Table 2 Bus Services that run along Intersecting Streets of Santa Monica Boulevard Street Name Bus Routes
Ocean Avenue  Big Blue Bus Route 8
 Big Blue Route 9
 LA Metro Route 134
2nd Street  Big Blue Bus Route 5
 LA Metro Route 33

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 9
Street Name Bus Routes
4th Street
(Terminus for some bus
routes)
 Big Blue Bus Route 1
 Big Blue Bus Route 2
 Big Blue Bus Route 3
 Big Blue Bus Rapid 3
 Big Blue Bus Rapid 7
 Big Blue Bus Route 8
 Big Blue Bus Route 9
 Big Blue Bus Rapid 10
 Big Blue Bus Route 18
 LA Metro Route 4
 LA Metro Route 20
 LA Metro Route 134
 LA Metro Route 720
6th Street
(Terminus for some bus
routes)
 Big Blue Bus Route 1
 Big Blue Bus Route 3
 Big Blue Bus Route 5
 Big Blue Bus Route 7
 Big Blue Bus Rapid 7
 Big Blue Bus Route 8
 Big Blue Bus Rapid 10
 Big Blue Bus Route 18
 LA Metro Route 4
7th Street  Big Blue Bus Route 5
 Big Blue Bus Route 7
 Big Blue Bus Route 8
Lincoln Boulevard  Big Blue Bus Route 18
 LA Metro Route 4
14th Street  Big Blue Bus Route 41
 LA Metro Route 4
20th Street  Big Blue Bus Route 41
 LA Metro Route 4
26th Street  Big Blue Bus Route 43
 LA Metro Route 4
Centinela Avenue  Big Blue Bus Route 16
Transit Delay
Bus operations and transit rider connections help us understand where street safety improvements might overlap for the benefit of more reliable transit travel times. Transit travel times are also a proxy for vehicle congestion, which is what often causes transit delay.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 10
The transit delay analysis calculates stop-to-stop average speed for Big Blue Bus Route 1 along the study corridor, using weekday trips collected in October 2024. To account for variations in stop distances, travel times were normalized by distance.

Morning Peak - Eastbound
Figure 1 shows the average travel speeds for eastbound trips during the morning peak period (7 a.m. to 10 a.m.). Most segments have travel speeds between 12 and 16 mph.

However, some segments experience significantly lower speeds, including the stretches between 22nd Street and Cloverfield Street, and 4th Street and 6th Street, where speeds drop below 9 mph. Other slower segments include 17th Street to 20th Street, and 6th Street to Lincoln Boulevard, with average travel speeds of 10–11 mph.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 11
Figure 1 Big Blue Bus Route 1 Eastbound Speeds Along Santa Monica Boulevard, AM Peak

Morning Peak – Westbound
In the westbound direction during the morning peak, Figure 2 shows that the slowest stretch is between Cloverfield Boulevard and 20th Street, followed by the segment between Yale Street and 26th Street. The remainder of the corridor in the morning westbound direction maintains speeds above 12 mph.

Nearside Bus Stop
Farside Bus Stop

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 12
Figure 2 Big Blue Bus Route 1 Westbound Speeds Along Santa Monica Boulevard, AM Peak Afternoon Peak - Eastbound
The afternoon peak includes all trips scheduled between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. Figure 3 shows that Route 1 buses traveling eastbound during this time experience slow speeds across much of the corridor. The segments from 22nd Street to Cloverfield Boulevard and 4th Street to 6th Street are the slowest, with travel speeds dropping below 7 mph and reaching as low as 4 mph. The segments from 20th Street to 22nd Street and 6th Street to Lincoln Boulevard have average speeds of 8–9 mph. Additionally, the segments from Cloverfield Boulevard to Yale Street and 17th Street to 20th Street do not exceed speeds of 11 mph during this period.

Nearside Bus Stop
Farside Bus Stop

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 13
Figure 3 Big Blue Bus Route 1 Eastbound Speeds Along Santa Monica Boulevard, PM Peak Afternoon Peak – Westbound
In contrast, buses traveling into Santa Monica during the afternoon peak period maintain steady speeds, with most of the corridor averaging above 12 mph. Figure 4 shows that even the slowest segment in the westbound direction, between Cloverfield Boulevard and 20th Street, has speeds of 10–11 mph.

Nearside Bus Stop
Farside Bus Stop

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 14
Figure 4 Big Blue Bus Route 1 Westbound Speeds Along Santa Monica Boulevard, PM Peak Los Angeles Metro Bus Route 4 also travels along the study corridor. This route connects Santa Monica to Downtown Los Angeles via Santa Monica Boulevard and serves five stops within the study corridor at 4th Street, Lincoln Boulevard, 14th Street, 20th Street, and 26th Street. Notably, Route 4 has fewer stops along the study corridor than Big Blue Bus Route 1.

Travel speed data for Route 4 was available for the study corridor by time of day and direction of travel, but not at the stop level. Figure 5 presents the average travel speed during the morning peak period for Route 4 buses traveling in both directions. As observed, buses travel slightly faster in the eastbound direction (13.1 mph on average) compared to the Bus Stop
Farside Bus Stop

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 15
westbound direction (11.8 mph on average). This travel speed pattern aligns with the observed speeds for Big Blue Bus Route 1, where eastbound segments generally exhibited higher speeds, particularly in the 14-16 mph range, compared to westbound segments.

Figure 5 Los Angeles Metro Route 4 Speeds Along Santa Monica Corridor, AM Peak In the afternoon peak, Figure 6 shows that overall speeds are lower than in the morning period, especially in the eastbound direction. Specifically, in the early afternoon, eastbound speeds along Santa Monica Boulevard are slightly below 10 mph but gradually improve to around 13 mph later in the afternoon. In contrast, westbound speeds remain more consistent throughout the afternoon, ranging from 11 to 12 mph. These trends for Route 4 also align with observations from Big Blue Bus Route 1, where long stretches of the corridor in the eastbound direction recorded speeds between 8-11 mph, making it the slowest direction and time period.

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 14.0

16.0 18.0
7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM Travel speed (miles per hour)
Time of day
Eastbound Westbound

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 16
Figure 6 Los Angeles Metro Route 4 Speeds Along Santa Monica Corridor, PM Peak Transit Ridership
Table 3 and Table 4 illustrate transit activity (boardings and alightings) by stop for the eastbound and westbound directions for Big Blue Bus routes, respectively, with stops averaging 100 or more daily activities highlighted.

In the eastbound direction, the stops with the highest transit activity are located at the beginning of the corridor, specifically at 4th Street and 6th Street, with activity levels of 366 and 174 boardings and alightings, respectively. Other stops with significant transit activity include those at 20th Street and 26th Street.

Table 3 BBB Transit Activity on Eastbound Stops in Corridor Stop Name (from west to east) Average daily boardings + alightings Routes included in data OCEAN NB/SANTA MONICA NS 10 8
SANTA MONICA EB/3RD FS 17 5, 8
SANTA MONICA EB/4TH FS 366 1, 5, 10, 18, 8
SANTA MONICA EB/6TH NS 174 1, 5, 10, 18, 8

SANTA MONICA EB/LINCOLN NS /

LINCOLN NB/SANTA MONICA FS
84 1, 5, 10
SANTA MONICA EB/11TH NS 62 1, 10
SANTA MONICA EB/14TH NS 83 1, 10
SANTA MONICA EB & 17TH FS 72 1, 10

0.0 2.0

4.0 6.0

8.0 10.0

12.0 14.0

16.0 18.0
4:00 PM 4:30 PM 5:00 PM 5:30 PM 6:00 PM 6:30 PM 7:00 PM Travel speed miles per hour
Time of day
Eastbound Westbound

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 17
SANTA MONICA EB/20TH FS 99 1, 10
SANTA MONICA EB/22ND FS 34 1
SANTA MONICA EB/CLOVERFIELD FS 44 1, 10
SANTA MONICA EB/26TH NS 120 1, 10
SANTA MONICA EB/YALE FS 62 1, 10
SANTA MONICA EB/BERKELEY NS 61 1
SANTA MONICA EB/CENTINELA FS 64 1, 10
Note that Route 8 only serves Santa Monica Blvd on its westbound trip (UCLA to Downtown Santa Monica) however, the route travels eastbound so the stops on Santa Monica will correspond to those on the eastbound direction.

In contrast, transit activity in the westbound direction is generally lower, particularly at the far west stops (4th Street and 3rd Street). This is because Routes 1 and 10 turn right onto 6th Street before getting to 4th Street as they do in the eastbound direction. However, the stop at 6th Street and Santa Monica has a transit activity of 255, the highest in the corridor. Similarly to the eastbound direction, the stop at 26th Street also sees high transit activity, with 126 boardings and alightings, making it the second busiest stop in the westbound direction.

Table 4 BBB Transit Activity on Westbound Stops in Corridor Stop Name (From east to west) Average daily boardings + alightings Routes included in data
SANTA MONICA WB/CENTINELA FS 58 1, 10
SANTA MONICA WB/BERKELEY NS 57 1
SANTA MONICA WB/YALE FS 59 1, 10
SANTA MONICA WB/26TH NS 106 1, 10
SANTA MONICA WB/CLOVERFIELD NS 49 1, 10
SANTA MONICA WB/22ND NS 49 1
SANTA MONICA WB/20TH FS 90 1, 10
SANTA MONICA WB/17TH FS 72 1, 10
SANTA MONICA WB/14TH NS 81 1, 10
SANTA MONICA WB/11TH FS 62 1, 10

SANTA MONICA WB/LINCOLN NS/

LINCOLN SB/SANTA MONICA NS
77 1, 10, 18
6TH SB & SANTA MONICA FS 255 1, 10, 18
LA Metro Route 4 is a frequent service line connecting Santa Monica with Downtown Los Angeles. Compared to Big Blue Bus routes, Route 4 has wider stop spacing, resulting in fewer stops along Santa Monica Boulevard. Table 5 presents the transit activity (boardings and alightings) at stops located on Santa Monica Boulevard, grouped by stop pair. The busiest stop is at Santa Monica Boulevard and 4th Street, serving over 600 passengers daily. The

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 18
remaining stops show relatively consistent activity, ranging from 186 to 253 passengers per day.

Table 5 LA Metro Route 4 Transit Activity by Stop
Stop Name Average daily boardings + alightings
SANTA MONICA / 3RD ST PROMENADE 231
SANTA MONICA / 4TH 638
6TH / SANTA MONICA 206
SANTA MONICA / LINCOLN 235
SANTA MONICA / 14TH 186
SANTA MONICA / 20TH 220
SANTA MONICA / 26TH 253
Safety improvements throughout the corridor should consider the crossing experience of inbound and outbound riders. Particular attention should be paid to high activity stops and where transfers require crossing Santa Monica Boulevard. 4 CRASH ANALYSIS
This section presents the results of the crash analysis along Santa Monica Boulevard from Ocean Avenue to Centinela Avenue. The goal of this analysis is to identify where, when, and why crashes occur, with a specific focus on patterns related to fatal and serious injury crashes.

The analysis is based on data from CrossRoads provided by the City of Santa Monica, and include crashes that took place between Jan 1, 2015 and Dec 31, 2024. Of note:
 The data includes all Injury and Property Damage Only (PDO) crashes. In the analysis PDO crashes are included in the Crash Trends and Intersection maps but are excluded from the analysis aiming at identifying specific patterns of injury crashes because a Chi-squared analysis of crash patterns and crash types demonstrated that there is a significant difference between PDO and injury crash attributes.  Crashes included in the analysis occurred within 100 feet of the Santa Monica Boulevard centerline. Additionally, CrossRoads data already assigned all crashes within 30 feet of the intersecting street centerlines as an intersection-related crash.

This analysis expanded that threshold to 50 feet to ensure an intersection-related crash footprint includes the crosswalks around the intersection.  For the purpose of assigning the preceding movements to a specific street, the analysis assumes that parties moving east or west are traveling along Santa Monica Boulevard and parties traveling north or south are approaching Santa Monica from an intersecting street.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 19
 While one or more parties can be involved in crashes as drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, passengers, or in other roles, CrossRoads data only includes information for two parties. Therefore, it is not possible to determine if more than two parties were involved.

Crash Trends
During 2015-2024, 435 injury crashes and 401 Property Damage Only crashes were recorded along the study corridor. Figure 7 illustrates the number of crashes and their distribution by injury severity. Notably, about half of the crashes were reported as property damage only.

Visible injuries and complaints of pain account for 48% of the total, while serious injuries and fatalities account for the remaining 3%.

Figure 7 Total crashes by injury level, 2015-2024
Total crashes per year reached a high point in 2018. Crashes significantly decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic beginning in early 2020, but gradually increased again after 2022.

The increase has been more pronounced for serious crashes, with 17 serious crashes from 2022- 2024. During the 10-year period analyzed one fatal crash occurred in 2017.

Property Damage
Only
401
Complaint of Pain 48.0%
233

27.9%
Other Visible Injury
171

20.5%
Severe Injury
30 3.6%
Fatal
1 0.1%

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 20
Figure 8 Annual crashes by injury level, 2015-2024
Who is involved in crashes?
Between 2015 and 2024, there was age information for approximately 600 people involved in the 435 injury crashes.

Figure 9 highlights that the two most common age groups for people involved in crashes are between 26–35 and 36–45, accounting for 24% and 17% of those involved, respectively. The yellow bars in the chart compare the age distribution of Santa Monica residents. Notably, the 16–25 age group is significantly overrepresented in crashes, making up 16% of those involved, despite only comprising 8% of the city's population. Similarly, the 26–35 age group is overrepresented by 6 percentage points. Children aged 0–15 years represent only 4 individuals (0.6%) of those involved. As explained in the following section, most crashes involve at least one person who is driving a vehicle or motorcycle. 2 2 The age distribution analysis is divided into 10-year intervals, except for the first and last categories. The first category includes all children who are not legally permitted to drive without supervision in the State of California. For individuals aged 75 and older, the number of people involved in crashes decreases significantly. Grouping them into a single category does not risk obscuring any specific trends related to this age group.
35 35 35
57 51
33 27 37 41 50
35 30 28
29 21
10 16
28 22 14
16 16 9
29 27
15 15
18 11 15
1 2
6 1
3 6
2 1 9
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Number of Crashes
Crash Year
Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 21
Figure 9 Age distribution of people involved in injury crashes, 2015-2024 Santa Monica population estimates according to American Community Survey 2019-2023.

Of the 625 people involved in injury crashes, 520 (83%) are driving motor vehicles (including motorcycles), 61 (10%) are pedestrians, and 40 (6%) are bicyclists. It is important to note that these figures represent the roles of individuals in a crash, not the crash mode, which is discussed later in the analysis. For example, in a crash involving a car hitting a pedestrian, the two parties involved are the driver and the pedestrian. However, this crash would be classified as a pedestrian crash.

Figure 10 shows the age distribution of individuals involved in crashes, broken down by their role in the crash. Each column color adds up to 100%. The chart highlights which age groups make up a larger proportion of individuals in each role and compares these distributions across roles. Key takeaways include:
 People between the ages of 26-35 are more likely to be involved in crashes across all modes compared to people in other age groups.
 Drivers aged 26-35 have the highest share (24%) of those involved in injury crashes, followed by the 16-25, 36-45, and 46-55 age groups. Adults between the ages of 26 and 55 account for more than half of the drivers involved in injury crashes.  Adults between the ages of 56-65 make up 18% of all pedestrians involved in injury crashes, 5% higher than drivers in this age group.
 Seniors aged 66-75 and 76+ make up 23% of all pedestrians involved in injury crashes, a significantly higher proportion than the 13% of drivers in these two age groups.
 Nearly 3% of all pedestrians involved in injury crashes are children under 16. 1%
16%
24%
17% 16%
13%
7% 6%
12%
8%
18%
15%
13% 14%
10% 9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Percentage of people/population
0-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Age Category
People involved in crashes (n = 625) Population in Santa Monica City (n = 91,500)

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 22
 People between the ages of 26 and 45 make up for more than 50% of all bicyclists involved in injury crashes, a higher proportion compared to drivers and pedestrians.

Figure 10 Age distribution of people by their role in the injury crash, 2015-2024 What types of crashes are occurring?
The crash mode is categorized based on the non-motor vehicle party involved. For example, a motor vehicle crash involves only automobiles, a pedestrian crash involves a pedestrian and a motor vehicle, and a bicycle crash involves a bicyclist and a motor vehicle. The data also includes two crashes involving only a bicyclist and a pedestrian; these were categorized under the pedestrian mode to streamline the analysis. Figure 11 shows the distribution of crash modes by injury level (Fatal/Serious Injury include one fatality during the period of analysis). Nearly 81% of all crashes involve only motor vehicles. However, when examining fatal and serious injury crashes, motor vehicle crashes account for 45%, nearly half their share in all crashes. Conversely, pedestrians are overrepresented in serious injury crashes, making up 29% of such incidents compared to 11% in all crashes. Bicycle and scooter crashes are also overrepresented in serious injury crashes (55%) compared to all crashes (20%). 0%
17%
24%
17% 17%
13%
7% 6%
3%
7%
20%
16%
13%
18%
10%
13%
0%
13%
33%
20%
10%
18%
5%
3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
0-15 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 76+
Percentage of people by role
Age Category
Driver (n = 520) Pedestrian (n = 61) Bicyclist (n = 40)

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 23
Figure 11 Share of crash mode in all crashes and serious injury crashes, 2015-2024 Note: “Minor Injury” category includes Other Visible Injury and Complaint of Pain Injury severity and crash type can also vary depending on whether the crash occurred at an intersection or a midblock location. Figure 12 compares the proportion of crashes at intersections and midblock, by injury severity. Most crashes along Santa Monica Boulevard occur at intersections with other streets (77%), while only 6% take place at intersections with alleys. In addition, no fatal or serious injury crashes were recorded at alley intersections.

Since alley crashes make up a small proportion of total crashes and do not contribute to fatal or serious injuries, the remainder of this report consolidates alley and street intersection crashes into a single intersection category.
45%
67%
97%

80.5%
16%
12%

0.7%

6.6%
29%
19%

1.7%

11.1%
10%
2%

0.5%

1.8%
(n = 31)
(n = 404)
(n = 401)
(n = 836)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Fatal/Serious Injury
Minor Injury
Property Damage Only
All Crashes
Motor Vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian Scooter

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 24
Figure 12 Intersection and midblock crashes by injury level Where are crashes occurring?
Figure 13 illustrates the concentration of crashes (PDO and Injury) along the study corridor using a heatmap that clusters the 797 geocoded crashes based on proximity. This number is slightly lower than the 836 total crashes presented in previous sections, as some crashes lacked sufficient data for geocoding and were therefore excluded from the spatial analysis.

The hotspots highlight areas with a higher density of crashes near each other. This visualization is intended to provide an overview and identify areas with high crash history for further investigation.
13%
12%
22%
17%
87%
82%
72%
77%
6%
6%
6%
(n = 31)
(n = 404)
(n = 401)
(n = 836)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Fatal/Serious Injury
Minor Injury
Property Damage
Only
All Crashes
Midblock Intersection - Street Intersection - Alley

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 25
Figure 13 Crash Concentration on Santa Monica Corridor
The heatmap above identifies the following locations with high crash history frequency:
 At the intersection with 4th Street.
 At the intersection with Lincoln Boulevard.
 Between 14th and 16th Streets.
 At the intersection with 20th Street.
 At the intersection with 26th Street.

To provide more detailed insights into crash history along the corridor, Figure 14, Figure 15, Figure 16, and Figure 17 show the number of crashes at each intersection. Since 83% of all crashes and 87% of injury crashes occur at intersections, the maps below focus on

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 26
intersection-related crashes to make it easier to identify high-crash areas and compare crash locations when weighted by severity. For better visualization, Santa Monica Boulevard is divided into four segments.

The first map on the upper half of each page for each segment show the total number of crashes, illustrated with red circles, while the lower maps display crashes weighted by severity, illustrated with blue circles. In the weighted maps, each serious injury crash (including one fatal crash) is multiplied by 20, other injury crashes (“other visible injury” and “complaint of pain” crashes) are multiplied by 5, and PDO crashes are multiplied by 1. This weighting is based on guidance from the State of California Local Roadway Safety Manual3 ,
intended to account for the social, economic, and relationship impacts of lost life and serious injury by elevating locations where the crash frequency might be lower, but the severity is higher. Note, the scale of the circles should not be compared across maps. Table 6 compares three groups of intersections: the top ten intersections with the highest number of total crashes (20 or more), the top ten with the highest number of injury crashes (14 or more), and the 17 intersections where at least one serious injury crash occurred between 2015 and 2024.

As highlighted in bold, eight intersections appear in all three categories—those with the highest total crashes, highest injury crashes, and at least one serious injury crash.. 3 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/local-assistance/documents/hsip/2024/lrsm2024-v2.pdf

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 27
Table 6 Intersections with highest number of total crashes, intersections with highest number of injury crashes and intersections with at least one serious injury Intersections along Santa
Monica Blvd with the highest
number of total crashes
Intersections along Santa
Monica Blvd with the highest
number of injury crashes
Intersections along Santa
Monica Blvd that have at least
one serious injury
 4th Street
 Lincoln Boulevard
 16th Street
 20th Street
 14th Street
 26th Street
 5th Street
 2nd Street
 15th Street
 6th Street
 16th Street
 20th Street
 14th Street
 Lincoln Boulevard
 26th Street
 4th Street
 15th Street
 5th Street
 18th Street
 19th Street
 10th Street
 6th Street
 14th Street
 Lincoln Boulevard
 26th Street
 15th Street
 18th Street
 11th Street
 Princeton Street
 16th Street
 20th Street
 4th Street
 5th Street
 Franklin Street
 Chelsea Avenue
 Yale Street
 9th Street

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 28
Figure 14 Number of total crashes and weighted crashes from Ocean Avenue to 9th Court, 2015-2024

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 29
Figure 15 Number of total crashes and weighted crashes from 10th Street to 18th Court, 2015-2024

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 30
Figure 16 Number of total crashes and weighted crashes from 18th Street to 26th Court, 2015-2024

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 31
Figure 17 Number of total crashes and weighted crashes from 26th Street to Centinela Avenue, 2015-2024 (Note that because the intersection with Centinela Avenue falls partially outside the City of Santa Monica boundary, crash data here may be incomplete)

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 32
Figure 18 shows the distribution of injury crash modes at intersections and midblock. Motor vehicles crashes make up the majority at both location types, nonetheless the share of motor vehicle crashes at intersections (65%) is less than at midblock (72%).

Figure 18 Intersection and midblock injury crashes by crash mode At intersections, the most significant primary collision factor for injury crashes is failure to yield to an automobile’s right of way. The next most significant primary collision factor at intersections is unsafe speed.

For injury crashes occurring at midblock, improper turning and unsafe speeds are the most common primary collision factors. The complete list of collision factors for both intersection and midblock crashes is presented in Figure 19.
72%
65%
19%
20%
5%
13%
5%
3%
(n = 43)
(n = 392)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Midblock
Intersection
Motor Vehicle Pedestrian Bicycle Scooter

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 33
Figure 19 Primary Collision Factors in Injury Crashes
Note: The above figured does not include the 54 injury crashes where contributing circumstances was coded as “Unknown”, “Not Stated” or “Missing”. Definitions for each primary collision factor are in the appendix and compiled from the California Highway Patrol Collision Investigation Manual.

Figure 20 shows the distribution of injury crashes that involve pedestrians and bicyclists at different location types. Many of these crashes (56-59%) occur at signalized intersections.

Bicyclist crashes (37%) and pedestrian crashes (34%) occur at about the same rate at unsignalized intersections. Conversely, pedestrian crashes (10%) are more common at midblock than bicyclist crashes (4%).
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Other
Other Than Driver
Other Improper Driving
Following Too Closely
Impeding Traffic
Unsafe Lane Change
Improper Passing
Wrong Side of Road
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Driving Under Influence
Pedestrian Violation
Ped R/W Violation
Other Hazardous Movement
Improper Turning
Traffic Signals and Signs
Unsafe Speed
Auto R/W Violation
Intersection Midblock

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 34
Figure 20 Pedestrian and bicyclists injury crashes by location type Unsignalized Signalized Midblock
Figure 21 shows the distribution of crash types across different location types. Crashes occur most frequently at signalized intersections, and injury severity is highest at unsignalized intersections.

Figure 21 Crash injury level by location type, 2015-2024 10%
56%
34%
Pedestrian (n = 89)
4%
59%
37%
Bicycle (n = 54)
3%
4%
4%
39%
48%
55%
58%
48%
41%
(n = 103)
(n = 380)
(n = 314)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Midblock
Signalized
Unsignalized
Fatal/Serious Injury Minor Injury Property Damage Only

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 35
When are crashes occurring?
This section examines seasonality of crashes and lighting. Figure 22 shows the total number of crashes each month over the ten-year period, by month. No discernable patterns emerge.

Figure 22 Frequency of Crashes by Month by Severity, 2015-2024 Figure 23 illustrates how the number of crashes increases throughout the day, peaking between 5 pm and 6 pm.

Figure 23 Crashes by Time of Day by Severity, 2015-2024 0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Number of Crashes
Property Damage Only Minor Injury Fatal/Serious Injury
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 12:00 AM
1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM 10:00 AM11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM 10:00 PM11:00 PM
Number of Crashes
Hour of Day
Fatal/Serious Injury Minor Injury

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 36
Figure 24 and Figure 25 illustrate the direction of travel for parties involved in injury crashes during the analysis period. For travel along Santa Monica Boulevard, the distribution between eastbound and westbound is generally similar, though the westbound direction has a slightly higher share during most hours of the day. Similarly, for northbound and southbound travel on cross streets, both directions have nearly equal shares, with no discernible trend.

Figure 24 Injury Crashes by Time of Day by Direction of Travel East-Westbound, 2015-2024 Figure 25 Injury Crashes by Time of Day by Direction of Travel North-Southbound, 2015-2024 Seasonal changes affect lighting conditions, with daylight hours being shorter in the winter.

Lighting availability is especially important for pedestrian and bicycle visibility, when streetlights may be their only source of lighting.
0 10
20 30
40 50
12:00 AM
1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM 10:00 AM11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM 10:00 PM11:00 PM
Number of Crashes
Time of Day
Eastbound Westbound
0 10
20 30
40 50
12:00 AM
1:00 AM2:00 AM3:00 AM4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM 10:00 AM11:00 AM
12:00 PM
1:00 PM2:00 PM3:00 PM4:00 PM5:00 PM6:00 PM7:00 PM8:00 PM9:00 PM 10:00 PM11:00 PM
Number of Crashes
Time of Day
Northbound Southbound

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 37
Crashes in Figure 26 include all incidents occurring between November and March from 3 to 5 PM (winter sunset) and all crashes occurring between May and September from 5 to 7 PM (summer sunset). The direction of travel refers to the movement of drivers involved in a given crash. In this chart, westbound travel indicates that the driver was driving into the sunset.

Figure 26 Crashes at Sunset by Driver’s Direction of Travel Crashes in Figure 27 include all incidents occurring between November and March from 6 to 8 AM (winter sunrise) and all crashes occurring between May and September from 5 to 7 AM (summer sunrise). The direction of travel refers to the movement of drivers involved in a given crash. In this chart, eastbound travel indicates that the driver was driving into the sunrise.
50%
30%
38%
50%
22%
30%
24%
14%
24%
18%
(n = 2)
(n = 76)
(n = 66)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Fatal/Serious Injury
Minor Injury
Property Damage Only
Westbound
(into sunset)
Eastbound Northbound Southbound

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 38
Figure 27 Crashes at Sunrise by Driver’s Direction of Travel Sun glare is a topic of emerging study (Study on the influence of sun glare on driving safety - ScienceDirect ). While a detailed analysis of this phenomenon could only be accomplished by reviewing the narrative of the crash reports, slower speeds can reduce the risk of serious injury should a driver be temporarily unable to see because of the low hanging sun. 28%
20%
16%
27%
36%
53%
100%
20%
(n = 1)
(n = 25)
(n = 15)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Fatal/Serious Injury
Minor Injury
Property Damage Only
Westbound Eastbound
(into sunrise)
Northbound Southbound

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 39
Figure 28 shows the distribution of lighting conditions in crashes across different injury levels. Most property damage only (PDO) and minor injury crashes occur during daylight, with only a small proportion happening at dusk or dawn. However, nearly one-quarter of PDO crashes and one-fifth of minor injury crashes occur in the dark, under the presence of street lighting. The proportion of fatal and serious injury crashes occurring in the dark with street lighting is significantly higher, accounting for 45% of these crashes under such lighting conditions. The share of crashes occurring at dusk or dawn is also higher for fatal and serious injuries compared to the other two categories. This suggests that the lack of natural daylight may be an underlying cause of fatal and serious injuries crashes.

Figure 28 Crashes by Injury Level and Lighting Conditions

48.4%

78.2%

71.5%

6.5%

2.2%

2.3%

45.2%

19.3%

26.2%

0.2%
(n = 31)
(n = 404)
(n = 390)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Fatal/Serious Injury
Minor Injury
Property Damage Only
Daylight Dusk - Dawn Dark - Street Lights Dark - No Street Lights

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 40
Figure 29 examines the relationship between the number of pedestrian crashes throughout the year and the lighting conditions at the time of each injury crash. October recorded the highest number of pedestrian crashes overall in the study period. November had a comparable number of pedestrian crashes, with more occurring in darkness. May and June had the lowest number of pedestrians crashes.

This analysis suggests that lighting conditions are unlikely to be a major factor in pedestrian crashes, as most incidents occur either in daylight or areas with streetlights. However, the data does suggest that winter months do have more incidence of pedestrian crashes, likely due to precipitation and/or reduced overall visibility (cloudy days, fewer daylight hours). An important caveat to this result is that data only indicates the presence of streetlights, but it does not capture if the lightning conditions were adequate.

Figure 29 Lighting Conditions in Pedestrian Injury Crashes by Month, 2015-2024 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Number of pedestrian crashes
Daylight Dusk-Dawn Dark - Street Lights Dark - No Street Lights

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 41
Figure 30 highlights the distribution of lighting conditions for the 52 bicycle injury crashes.

The data shows that bicycle crashes predominantly occur during daylight. March, April, May, September, October, November, and December had bicycle crashes that occur in the dark with streetlights.

Figure 30 Lighting Conditions in Bicycle Injury Crashes by Month, 2015-2024 Figure 31 illustrates the distribution of pedestrian crashes by time of day during the analysis period. Most crashes occur between three timeframes: 7 am to 10 am, 1pm to 4 pm, and 4 pm to 7 pm. In sum, the rates are likely associated with exposure, as these times of day are expected to have more activity.

Figure 31 Pedestrian injury crashes by time of day occurrence, 2015-2024 3 2
7 3 4
1 4 4 4 3
1 4
1 2
1 1 2 3
1 1
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Number of bicyclist crashes
Daylight Dusk-Dawn Dark - Street Lights Dark - No Street Lights 0 5 10 15 20 25
Before 7a.m.
7a.m. - 10a.m.
10a.m. - 1p.m.
1p.m. - 4p.m.
4p.m. - 7p.m.
7p.m. - 10p.m.

After 10p.m.

Pedestrian Crashes
Time of Day

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 42
Why are crashes occurring?
Crash reports provide details about the primary and contributing factors that caused a crash, and the sobriety of each party involved. This analysis examines the proportion of crashes where speed, impairment, and/or inattention was identified either as primary collision factor or contributing factor when applicable.

Figure 32 presents speed-related crashes by injury level. A crash was categorized as speedrelated if the primary collision factor was identified as "unsafe speed". Among the 31 serious injury crashes, 3% were associated with speeding, a lower proportion compared to minor injury crashes and property damage only. This trend is atypical, as most crash analyses show a positive correlation between speed and injury severity.

Figure 32 Speed-Related Crashes by Injury Level, 2015-2024 97%
88%
87%
3%
12%
13%
(n = 31)
(n = 404)
(n = 401)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Fatal/Serious Injury
Minor Injury
Property Damage Only
Other Speeding
Other factors Speeding

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 43
Figure 33 shows impairment-related crashes by injury level. A crash was considered impairment-related if any party "Had Been Drinking (HBD) - Under Influence" or “Under Drug Influence”; or if the crash primary collision factor was recorded as “Driving Under Influence”.

Out of the 836 crashes analyzed, only 48 (5%) were related to impairment. The proportion of crashes involving impairment is highest in property damage only (7%) and fatal/serious injury crashes (6%).

Figure 33 Impairment-Related Crashes by Injury Level, 2015-2024 Figure 34 highlights inattention-related crashes by injury level. A crash was classified as inattention-related if the contributing factor for any party was listed as "Inattention”.

According to the crash data, inattention is a small factor in crashes on Santa Monica Boulevard.

Figure 34 Inattention-Related Crashes by Injury Level, 2015-2025 94%
96%
93%
6%
4%
7%
(n = 31)
(n = 404)
(n = 401)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Fatal/Serious Injury
Minor Injury
Property Damage Only
Other Impairment
97%
96%
99%
4%
1%
(n = 31)
(n = 404)
(n = 401)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Fatal/Serious Injury
Minor Injury
Property Damage Only
Other Inattention
Other factors Impairment
Other factors Inattention

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 44
For motor vehicle-only injury crashes, the most common crash type is a broadside crash, where the front of one vehicle strikes the side of another vehicle. Figure 35 shows that 160 out of the 284 motor vehicle injury crashes were broadside crashes, followed by rear-end crashes (66) and head-on collisions (23).

Figure 35 Motor Vehicle Injury Crash Types, 2014-2025
A deeper understanding of why crashes occur requires an evaluation of the movements made by the parties involved immediately before the crash. Table 7 illustrates the combinations of preceding movements by motor vehicles involved in motor vehicle-only injury crashes.

The most common scenario involves two vehicles proceeding straight. These movements are typical for broadside crashes. Other common scenarios include a vehicle proceeding straight colliding with a vehicle making a left turn, vehicle proceeding straight into a stopped vehicle.

Table 7 Motor Vehicles Movement Combination Preceding Motor Vehicle-Only Injury Crashes (continued on following page)
Motor Vehicle 1 Action Motor Vehicle 2 Action Number of Crashes Proceeding straight Proceeding straight 107
Making left turn Proceeding straight 59
Proceeding straight Stopped in road 45
Making right turn Proceeding straight 12
Entering traffic Proceeding straight 10
Making U-turn Proceeding straight 8
Changing lanes Proceeding straight 5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Not Stated
Hit Object
Other
Overturned
Sideswipe
Head-On
Rear-End
Broadside
Number of Crashes
Crash Type

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 45
Motor Vehicle 1 Action Motor Vehicle 2 Action Number of Crashes Parked Proceeding straight 4
Proceeding straight NA 4
Backing Making left turn 2
Backing Proceeding straight 2
Making left turn Parked 2
Making left turn Stopped in road 2
Making right turn Stopped in road 2
Other Proceeding straight 2
Proceeding straight Slowing / stopping 2
Note: Preceding movement combinations with fewer than two crashes are not shown in the table.

Table 8 illustrates the combinations of pedestrian and motor vehicle actions leading to pedestrian injury crashes. The dominant preceding crash type is a vehicle making a left turn into a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection.

Table 8 Pedestrian and Vehicle Movement Combination Preceding Pedestrian Crashes Pedestrian action Motor Vehicle Action Number of Crashes Crossing in crosswalk at intersection Making left turn 23 Crossing in crosswalk at intersection Proceeding straight 16 Crossing in crosswalk at intersection Making right turn 11 In road Proceeding straight 10
Not in road Proceeding straight 5
Crossing not in crosswalk Proceeding straight 3
Not in road Making right turn 3
Crossing in crosswalk at intersection Traveling wrong way 2 Note: Preceding movement combinations with fewer than two injury crashes are not shown in the table.

Refer to California Highway Patrol Collision Investigation Manual.

Table 9 highlights the combinations of bicycle and motor vehicle movements preceding injury crashes. The most common motor vehicle movement involved in these crashes was making a right turn, making a left turn, and proceeding straight, while the bicycle was proceeding straight in all instances.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 46
Table 9 Bicycle and Vehicle Movement Combination Preceding Bicycle Injury Crashes Bicycle action Motor Vehicle Action Number of Crashes
Proceeding straight Making right turn 11
Proceeding straight Making left turn 9
Proceeding straight Proceeding straight 9
Proceeding straight Parked 4
Proceeding straight Entering traffic 3
Making left turn Proceeding straight 2
Proceeding straight Stopped in road 2
Traveling wrong way Making right turn 2
Note: Preceding movement combinations with fewer than two injury crashes are not shown in the table.

Another way to analyze crash patterns is by examining the reported violation codes. During this period, the top three cited violations in reported crashes were: unsafe lane change (n=134), excessive speed (n=102); and failure to stop at a stop sign before entering an intersection (n=51).
5 DEMAND ANALYSIS
Methodology
A travel demand analysis was conducted to identify high activity areas along Santa Monica Boulevard generating trips taken by any mode that require travel across the boulevard. This analysis utilized data from Replica, a platform that provides modeled mobility insights based on anonymized location data.

To obtain origin-destination (OD) flows, the Replica platform allows users to select predefined geographies (e.g., census tracts) or define custom geographies. Twelve (12) custom areas were used for this analysis, designed to evaluate trip flows across Santa Monica Boulevard. These areas are bounded by Wilshire Boulevard to the north and Colorado Avenue to the south, with Santa Monica Boulevard serving as the central divider. Oddnumbered zones represent areas north of Santa Monica Boulevard (bounded by Wilshire Boulevard), while even-numbered zones represent areas south of Santa Monica Boulevard (bounded by Colorado Avenue).

The crossing streets that define the boundaries of these zones are as follows:
• SM01 and SM02: Ocean Avenue to 4th Street
• SM03 and SM04: 4th Street to Lincoln Boulevard

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 47
• SM05 and SM06: Lincoln Boulevard to 14th Street
• SM07 and SM08: 14th Street to 20th Street
• SM09 and SM10: 20th Street to 26th Street
• SM11 and SM12: 26th Street to Centinela Avenue
These zones were loaded into the Replica platform to retrieve all individual trips starting or ending within any of the custom zones. The query returned approximately 25,000 daily trips within the defined zones.

An origin-destination (OD) matrix was then constructed to aggregate all trips between zones.

For instance, trips starting in zone SM01 and ending in zone SM03 were combined with trips starting in SM03 and ending in SM01. Using this matrix, the analysis consolidated unidirectional flows into bidirectional flows and identified the OD pairs with the largest trip volumes.

It is important to note that only flows involving a north zone paired with a south zone were considered, as these trips require crossing Santa Monica Blvd. The remainder of this section presents the results of the demand analysis.

Trip Origin and Destination Analysis
Figure 36 illustrates trip origin and destination pairs that have more than 400 daily trips across Santa Monica Boulevard. The top five zones with more than 400 daily trips are shown below. Analyzing travel patterns of how people cross Santa Monica Boulevard can provide insights into where potential conflicts may occur.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 48
Figure 36 Origin Destination Pairs with more than 200 Trips, 2019-2023

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 49
SM 01 (Santa Monica Boulevard between Ocean Avenue and 4th Street) and SM 04 (Santa Monica Boulevard between 4th Street and Lincoln Boulevard)
SM 01 is located between Ocean Avenue and 4th Street and SM 04 is located between 4th Street and Lincoln Boulevard. SM 01 primarily consists of office buildings, retail and dining areas, and hotels, while SM 04 features a mix of dining and retail areas, such as 3rd Street Promenade, along with a library and residential apartment buildings.

These two zones have the most daily trips with 737 trips. Trips are divided into two flows:
 57% of trips (419 trips) originate in SM 01 and end in SM 04.  43% of trips (318 trips) originate in SM 04 and end in SM 01.

SM 01 and SM 02 (Santa Monica Boulevard between 4th Street and Lincoln Boulevard)
SM 01 and SM 02 are also located in the downtown area between 4th Street and Lincoln Boulevard. SM 01 primarily consists of office buildings at 100 Wilshire Boulevard and 1299 Ocean Avenue, retail and dining areas, and hotels. SM 02 consists of retail areas including Santa Monica Place, a shopping mall. 3rd Street Promenade intersects both zones.

These two zones have a total of 643 daily trips, and trips are divided into two flows:
 44% of trips (286 trips) originate in SM 01 and end in SM 02.  55% of trips (357 trips) originate in SM 02 and end in SM 01.

SM 01 (Santa Monica Boulevard between Ocean Avenue and 4th Street) and SM 06 (Santa Monica Boulevard between Lincoln Boulevard and 14th Street)
SM 01 is located between Ocean Avenue and 4th Street and SM 06 is located between Lincoln Boulevard and 14th Street. SM 01 SM 01 primarily consists of office buildings, retail and dining areas, and hotels, while SM 06 consists of dining and retail areas, offices, and residential apartment buildings.

These two zones have a total of 296 trips, and trips are divided into two flows:
 54% of trips (160 trips) originate in SM 01 and end in SM 06.  46% of trips (136) originate in SM 06 and end in SM 01.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 50
SM 02 (Santa Monica Boulevard between Ocean Avenue to 4th Street) and SM 03 (Santa Monica Boulevard between 4th Street and Lincoln Boulevard)
SM 02 is located between Ocean Avenue to 4th Street and SM 03 is located between 4th Street and Lincoln Boulevard. SM 02 consists of retail areas including Santa Monica Place and 3rd Street Promenade. SM 03 consists of a mix of retail spaces, offices, and residential areas.

These two zones experience a total of 201 trips and are divided into two flows:
 50% of trips (101 trips) originate in SM 02 and end in SM 03.  50% of trips (100 trips) originate in SM 03 and end in SM 02.

SM 03 and SM 04 (Santa Monica Boulevard between 4th Street and Lincoln Boulevard)
SM 03 and SM 04 are located between 4th Street and Lincoln Boulevard. Both areas feature a mix of retail spaces including car dealerships, offices, and residential areas.

These two zones experience a total of 463 daily trips and are divided into two flows:
 56% of trips (261 trips) originate in SM 03 and end in SM 04.  44% of trips (207 trips) originate in SM 04 and end in SM 03.

SM 05 and SM 06 (Santa Monica Boulevard between Lincoln Boulevard and 14th Street)
SM 05 and SM 06 are located between Lincoln Boulevard and 14th Street. SM 05 consists of retail including car dealerships, dining, offices, and residential areas.

These two zones have a total of 355 trips and are divided into two flows:
 46% of trips (165 trips) originate in SM 05 and end in SM 06.  54% of trips (190 trips) originate in SM 06 and end in SM 05.

SM 06 (Santa Monica Boulevard between Lincoln Boulevard and 14th Street) and SM 07 (Santa Monica Boulevard between 14th Street and 20th Street)
SM 06 is located between Lincoln Boulevard and 14th Street and SM 07 is located between 14th Street 20th Street. SM 06 consists of retail, dining, offices, and residential areas. SM 07 consists of retail areas including car dealerships, dining, and offices. SM 07 consists of retail areas including retail areas including car dealerships, offices, and residential areas.

These two zones have a total of 313 total trips and are divided into two flows:

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 51
 50% of trips (156 trips) originate in SM 06 and end in SM 07.  50% of trips (157 trips) originate in SM 07 and end in SM 06.

SM 07 (Santa Monica Boulevard between 14th Street and 20th Street) and SM 10 (Santa Monica Boulevard between 20th Street and 26th Street)
SM 07 is located between 14th Street and 20th Street and consists of retail areas including retail areas including car dealerships, offices, and residential areas. SM 10 is located between 20th Street and 26th Street and consists of healthcare facilities such as the UCLA Health Santa Monica Parkside Family Medicine and Providence Saint John’s Cancer Institute, office buildings including Colorado Center, retail and dining areas, and residential areas.

These zones experience 226 total trips and are divided into two trip flows:
 52% of trips (117 trips) originate in SM 07 and end in SM 10.  48% of trips (109 trips) originate in SM 10 and end in SM 07.

SM 09 and SM 10: (Santa Monica Boulevard between 20th Street and 26th Street)
SM 09 and SM 10 are located between 20th Street and 26th Street. SM 09 consists of healthcare facilities such as Providence Saint John’s Health Center, educational facilities like McKinley Elementary School, retail and dining areas, and residential areas. SM 10 consists of healthcare facilities such as the UCLA Health Santa Monica Parkside Family Medicine and Providence Saint John’s Cancer Institute, office buildings including Colorado Center, retail and dining areas, and residential areas.

These zones experience 594 daily trips and are divided into two flows:
 43% of trips (254 trips) originate in SM 09 and end in SM 10.  57% of trips (340 trips) originate in SM 10 and end in SM 09.

SM 09 (Santa Monica Boulevard between 20th Street and 26th Street) and SM 12 (Santa Monica Boulevard between 26th Street and Centinela Avenue)
SM 09 is located between 20th Street and 26th Street, and SM 12 is located between 26th Street and Centinela Avenue. SM 09 includes healthcare facilities, offices, retail, and residential areas. SM 12 features a mix of retail spaces, hotels, and residential areas.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 52
These zones have a total of 325 trips and are divided into two flows:
 57% of trips (204 trips) originate in SM 09 and end in SM 12.  43% of trips (154 trips) originate SM 12 and end in SM 09.

SM 10 (Santa Monica Boulevard between 20th Street to 26th Street) and SM 11 (Santa Monica Boulevard between 26th Street and Centinela Avenue)
SM 10 is located between 20th Street and 26th Street, and SM 11 is located between 26th Street and Centinela Avenue. SM 10 includes healthcare facilities, retail, and offices, and residential. SM 11 has a mix of retail spaces, hotels, and residential areas.

These two zones have a total of 272 trips and are divided into two flows:
 49% of trips (133 trips) originate in SM 10 and end in SM 11.  51% of trips (139 trips) originate in SM 11 and end in SM 10.

SM 11 and SM 12 (Santa Monica Boulevard between 26th Street and Centinela Avenue)
SM 11 and SM 12 are located between 26th Street and Centinela Avenue. Both areas feature a mix of retail spaces, hotels, and residential areas.

These two zones have a total of 477 daily trips and are divided into two flows:
 48% of trips (229 trips) originate in SM 11 and end in SM 12.  52% trips (248 trips) originate in SM 12 and end in SM 11.

Downtown Santa Monica Station and SM 01 (Santa Monica Boulevard between Ocean Avenue to 4th Street)
Downtown Santa Moncia E Line Metro Station is located on Colorado Avenue and 4th Street, and SM 01 is located between Ocean Avenue to 4th Street.

These two zones have a total of 297 trips and are divided into two flows:
 85% of trips (253 trips) originate in the Downtown Santa Monica Station and end in SM 01.
 15% of trips (36 trips) originate in SM 01 and end at the Downtown Santa Monica Station.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 53
6 SYNTHESIS OF SAFETY ISSUES
The following issues elevated by the technical walk audit and safety analysis should be considered when making recommendations for Santa Monica Boulevard.

1. Excessive speed
Excessive speed has been identified as one of the top three collision factors in reported crashes. Speeding is more prevalent in the areas between Cloverfield Boulevard and Centinela Avenue where many drivers were reported traveling 5 to 15 mph over the posted speed limit. Safety walk audit participants also shared concerns about higher vehicle speeds in the eastern portion of Santa Monica Boulevard due to wider lanes and larger block spacing which encourages speeding. Evaluate appropriate traffic calming measures approaching intersections to reduce injury collisions of all types.

2. Collisions involving people walking in the crosswalk Pedestrian crashes are overrepresented in serious injury crashes. Appropriate safety measures should be explored during the recommendation phase to increase driver awareness of pedestrians and compliance with yielding laws.

3. Inconsistent pavement markings and signs
Pavement markings and signs are inconsistent throughout the Santa Monica Boulevard corridor. Some crosswalks and warning and regulatory signage are faded, while crosswalks are missing on north-south running streets. While pedestrian crashes are fewer in unmarked areas compared to marked areas, standardizing crosswalks and signage throughout the corridor could help reduce overall crashes. Additionally, consistent and clear crosswalks and warning and regulatory signage would enhance visibility for both drivers and pedestrians.

4. Side street conflicts
A significant number of crashes involve vehicles making left turns while pedestrians are crossing crosswalks. During the safety walk audit, numerous drivers were observed completing their left turns during permissive phases when the traffic signal turned yellow or red. The lack of sufficient gaps in opposing through movements causes drivers to focus on completing their turns and failing to notice pedestrians crossing the street. For signalized intersections, consider eliminating permissive phases at high pedestrian volumes areas. At unsignalized intersections with side streets, a similar threat is posed by drivers turning off the boulevard where left turn prohibitions can be considered.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 54

5. Excessive distance between marked crosswalks
Large block spacing causes many pedestrians to walk long distances to access crosswalks, causing many to jaywalk as pedestrians often opt for a shorter route. This behavior is promoted due to the lack of crosswalks running north-south of Santa Monica Boulevard.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 55
7 RANKED INTERSECTION LIST
Table 10 15 Intersections Ranked by Weighted Severity of Reported Crashes Intersection Total
crashes
Total
Crashes
Weighted
(a)
Serious
Injury
Crashes
Pedestrian
Crashes
Bicycle
Crashes
Scooter
Crashes
Motor
Vehicle
Crashes
Most common turning movement
combinations
Most common injurious
collision type
Santa Monica Blvd and 14th St 34 152 2 4 4 1 25 Westbound through – Southbound through (2)
Eastbound turn left – Northbound
through (2)
Broadside (9)
Santa Monica Blvd and 16th St 37 152 1 5 4 0 28 Westbound through – Northbound through (8)
Broadside (17)
Santa Monica Blvd and Lincoln
Blvd
38 144 2 1 1 0 36 Eastbound through – Northbound
through (3)
Broadside (5)
Santa Monica Blvd and 20th St 37 140 1 5 4 0 28 No movement combination with more than 1 crash
Broadside (9)
Santa Monica Blvd and 4th St 56 139 1 3 0 3 50 Westbound through – Southbound through (4)
Broadside (6)
Santa Monica Blvd and 26th St 31 137 2 7 3 0 21 Westbound through – Northbound through (2)
Westbound through – Northbound
turn left (2)
Broadside (9)
Santa Monica Blvd and 15th St 24 122 2 2 0 0 22 Eastbound through – Southbound through (6)
Broadside (11)
Santa Monica Blvd and 18th St 18 112 2 2 2 0 14 Eastbound through – Southbound through (6)
Broadside (9)
Santa Monica Blvd and 5th St 30 109 1 4 3 1 22 Eastbound through – Northbound through (2)
Broadside (5)

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 56
Intersection Total
crashes
Total
Crashes
Weighted
(a)
Serious
Injury
Crashes
Pedestrian
Crashes
Bicycle
Crashes
Scooter
Crashes
Motor
Vehicle
Crashes
Most common turning movement
combinations
Most common injurious
collision type
Santa Monica Blvd and 10th St 18 99 3 5 0 0 13 Westbound through – Southbound through (2)
Westbound through – Northbound
through (2)
Broadside (6)
Santa Monica Blvd and 11th St 17 99 2 4 3 0 10 Westbound through – Northbound through (2)
Broadside (7)
Santa Monica Blvd and 6th 20 97 3 2 4 0 14 Eastbound turn right – Northbound through (1)
Sideswipe (3)
Santa Monica Blvd and Princeton
St
18 92 2 2 2 0 14 No movement combination with
more than 1 crash
Broadside (5)
Santa Monica Blvd and 19th St 19 75 0 3 1 0 15 Westbound through – Northbound through (5)
Broadside (10)
Santa Monica Blvd and Franklin St 14 69 1 1 1 1 11 Eastbound through – Southbound through (3
Broadside (5)
(a) Crashes are weighted by injury severity as follows: fatal and serious injury = 20, other injury = 5, and property damage only = 1.

Number in parenthesis indicates the number of crashes corresponding to that movement combination or collision type.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 57
APPENDIX –COLLISION FACTOR

DEFINITIONS
Auto R/W Violation: Situations where a driver fails to yield the right-of-way to another vehicle as mandated, causing conflicts or collisions.

Driving Under Influence: Operating a vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs, significantly increasing crash risk.

Following Too Closely: When a vehicle maintains an insufficient distance from the vehicle ahead, leading to rear-end collisions.

Impeding Traffic: Driving at unusually low speeds or stopping without cause, obstructing the normal flow of traffic.

Improper Passing: Overtaking another vehicle in prohibited zones or without ensuring a clear path, risking side-swipe or head-on collisions.

Improper Turning: Executing turns in a manner that violates traffic rules or endangers others, like turning from the wrong lane.

Not Stated: Cases where the specific cause or contributing factor of the crash isn't specified.

Other Hazardous Movement: Dangerous driving actions not categorized elsewhere, such as sudden swerving.

Other Improper Driving: Driver behaviors that are inappropriate but don't fall under specific infractions, like erratic driving.

Other Than Driver: Crashes attributed to factors not involving driver error, such as mechanical failures or environmental conditions.

Other: Miscellaneous crash causes that don't fit standard categories.

Ped R/W Violation: Situations where a pedestrian fails to yield the right-of-way when required, leading to potential accidents.

Pedestrian Violation: Incidents where a pedestrian's actions, like jaywalking, contribute to a collision.

Traffic Signals and Signs: Crashes resulting from disregarding or misinterpreting traffic control devices, such as running red lights.

Unknown: Instances where the cause of the crash hasn't been determined or recorded.

Unsafe Lane Change: Switching lanes without proper signaling, checking blind spots, or yielding, causing potential collisions.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety and Transit Analysis Final Draft City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 58
Unsafe Speed: Driving at speeds unsuitable for conditions, exceeding limits, or too fast for road/weather conditions.

Unsafe Starting or Backing: Initiating movement from a stationary position or reversing without ensuring the path is clear.

Wrong Side of Road: Driving against the designated direction, leading to potential head-on crashes.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SAFETY STUDY

SAFETY AUDIT REPORT

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 1
Santa Monica Boulevard
Safety Enhancement
Study – Roadway Safety
Audit Report FINAL
January 2025

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 2

INTRODUCTION
Project Overview
The Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study aims to enhance safety, access, and the overall transportation experience along Santa Monica Boulevard from Ocean Avenue to Centinela Avenue, a 2.4-mile corridor. Nelson\Nygaard, along with Michael Baker International, hosted a safety walk audit on November 21, 2024 with representatives from various City of Santa Monica departments, including Fire, Police, Public Works, and Transportation. This memo summarizes the preparation and facilitation of the walk audit.

Safety Walk Audit Purpose and Goals
The purpose of the safety walk audit is to:
 Examine travel behaviors by people using Santa Monica Boulevard.  While walking and taking the Big Blue Bus Route 1, document safety concerns of pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and drivers along the Santa Monica Boulevard corridor.
 Review five years of crash data and recent community comments to identify highpriority intersections.  Gather and discuss concerns, opportunities, and limitations from key staff across city departments.

The goal of the safety walk audit is to synthesize key observations of behavior and infrastructure along the corridor and across the corridor.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 3
Figure 1 Walk Audit Participants
Figure 2 Santa Monica Police officer writing observations

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 4
Figure 3 Big Blue Bus staff writing observations

METHODOLOGY
Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study Area
The corridor has four travel lanes with left turn pockets at intersections. Curb to curb lane widths are narrower near Ocean Avenue and the downtown area, ranging from 42 feet to 63 feet, and gradually are wider toward Centinela Avenue at 76 feet. Block spacing along the corridor averages about 320 feet.

Land uses along the corridor primarily consist of commercial and office spaces, and public facilities such as libraries, hospitals, and schools. The segment from Lincoln Avenue to 19th Street is unique in that it hosts most of the city’s auto dealerships. The corridor is served by Big Blue Bus and L.A. Metro transit. Bike facilities intersect Santa Monica Boulevard at:
 Ocean Avenue (Class II)
 2nd Street (Class II)
 6th Street (Class II)
 7th Street (Class II)
 Lincoln Boulevard (Class III)
 11th Street (Class II)
 14th Street (Class II)
 17th Street (Class II)

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 5
 Yale Street (Class II)
Walk Audit Extents
Nelson\Nygaard examined data collected from community engagement events and an online survey, and reviewed the Local Safety Roadway Plan (LSRP) and the Vision Zero Plan to inform the intersections city department representatives visited during the safety walk audit. While the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study examines the 2.4-mile corridor from Ocean Avenue and Centinela Avenue, the safety walk audit focused on seven intersections, and the segments between them (Figure 4):
 Santa Monica Boulevard and 6th Street
 Santa Monica Boulevard and 16th Street
 Santa Monica Boulevard and 18th Street
 Santa Monica Boulevard and 20th Street
 Santa Monica Boulevard and 23rd Street
 Santa Monica Boulevard and 26th Street
 Santa Monica Boulevard and Stanford Street
Figure 4 Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study Area
Community Feedback
Prior to facilitating the Safety Audit, the Here LA team hosted an engagement event at the Santa Monica Public Library and an online survey via Social Pinpoint to gather input from community members about safety concerns along Santa Monica Boulevard. An event summary of the “LIGHT UP THE NIGHT” pop up prepared by Here LA will be made available under a separate cover. Common concerns that community members shared included:
 High vehicular speeds
 Difficulty crossing for both pedestrians and cyclists  Lack of crosswalks on all four sides of intersections  Bus amenities in poor condition
 Congestion on various blocks

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 6
 Right-turning drivers fail to see cyclists
This initial feedback helped inform Safety Audit participants on the community’s experiences at key intersections.

Local Safety and Roadway Plan (2022)
The City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LSRP) analyzed crash data from 2015 to 2019 to identify corridors and intersections with the highest number of crashes. These included 6th Street, 15th Street, 16th Street, 18th Street, 20th Street, and 26th Street along Santa Monica Boulevard.

Vision Zero Plan (2017)
The Vision Zero Plan identifies near-term efforts to reduce fatal and severe injury crashes to zero by 2026. Crash data from 2006 to 2016 were analyzed to identify locations with high concentrations of crashes. The Santa Monica Boulevard and Cloverfield Boulevard intersection was identified as a high priority intersection (Figure 5).

Figure 5 Vision Zero Priority Map, 2017

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 7
Safety Walk Audit
The safety walk audit occurred on November 21, 2024, from 9 AM to 1 PM with fifteen (15) participants from various city departments in attendance, including:
 Department of Transportation
− Mobility Division
− Big Blue Bus
 Public Works Department
 Fire Department
 Police Department
Figure 6 shows the itinerary for the safety walk audit. Participants gathered at the Santa Monica Public Library for introductions and a presentation detailing the purpose of the safety walk audit with instructions on how to use worksheets for recording observations during the audit.

During the briefing before the walk audit, participants shared one word to describe Santa Monica Boulevard which included:
 Busy (5 times)  Congested
 Legendary  Dealerships
 Iconic  Traffic (2 times)
 Innovative  Dangerous
 Action  Route 1
 Buses
After observing Santa Monica Boulevard at 6th Street, participants rode the Big Blue Bus to 17th Street. After walking approximately one mile to Berkeley Street, they returned by bus to the library.

At the end of the safety walk audit, participants returned to the library to debrief at which time they shared and discussed their observations of the corridor. Responses are synthesized in the ‘Observations’ section of this memo.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 8
Figure 6 Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Walk Audit Itinerary Participants received two sets of worksheets at the beginning of the tour to help facilitate their evaluation of the conditions along Santa Monica Boulevard.  Corridor overview sheet provided data on total crashes, bus stop locations, transit ridership, and 85th percentile speeds.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 9
 Crash diagram worksheets (Figure 7) provided detailed crash types and statistics for the seven intersections included in the tour, along with preliminary community feedback collected during an engagement event at the Santa Monica Public Library hosted by Here LA.

Throughout the safety walk audit, participants documented behavioral observations (i.e., travel patterns of pedestrians, cyclists, rollers, and drivers) and infrastructure observations (i.e., infrastructure that create challenges or opportunities for pedestrians, cyclists, rollers, and drivers) on the crash diagram worksheets.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 10
Figure 7 Example of Crash Diagram Worksheet

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 11

OBSERVATIONS
This section summarizes the general observations from the data and notes collected from the cut sheets as well as the debrief discussion of the corridor and individual intersections conducted at the end of the tour.

Corridor-wide
Behavioral Observations
 Drivers seem to lack sufficient gaps to make left turns and often initiate them when the traffic signal turns yellow or red and/or while pedestrians are in the crosswalk.  While drivers trying to turn wait for pedestrians to clear or gaps in oncoming traffic, they block intersections and crosswalks.
 Pedestrians cross in unmarked and midblock locations.  Some delivery truck operators park along the red curb to unload goods.  Some people walking do not have enough time to finish crossing Santa Monica Boulevard during the pedestrian signal phase.
 Pedestrians do not activate rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs) before crossing.  Some drivers did not yield to pedestrians when the RRFB was activated.  Vehicle speeds are noticeably higher along the eastern end of the corridor.

Infrastructure Observations
 Westbound right turn only signs for the curb lane approaching Lincoln Boulevard are positioned at the far side of the intersection only. Police officers noted they are not sufficiently prominent for enforcement.
 Sidewalk cross slopes are not maintained at 2% across at multiple driveways along the corridor.
 Many parcels have land uses, such as car dealerships, with long driveways.  Curb ramps require people using wheelchairs to travel out of direction to enter crosswalks.
 Some curb ramps are missing truncated domes.
 Inconsistent signage and pavement markings for crosswalks along the corridor.  Many crosswalks are faded.
 Overgrown trees obstruct street lights, traffic signals and RRFBs, limiting drivers’ ability to see them.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 12
 Sight triangles are obstructed by vehicles parked too close to intersections and driveways.
 There is no ‘School Zone’ ends westbound signage for McKinley Elementary School.

Santa Monica Boulevard and 6th Street
Santa Monica Boulevard at 6th Street is controlled by a two phase traffic signal. Santa Monica Boulevard has two lanes in each direction plus a left turn pocket, and 6th Street has one bike lane and one travel lane in each direction with a left turn pocket. Land uses adjacent to the intersection include offices, retail, and library on Santa Monica Boulevard and retail and residential on 6th Street. Loading and/or parking are permitted starting at about 80 feet from the intersection. There are high visibility crosswalks and advance stop bars at all legs. Signals include leading pedestrian intervals (LPI’s) for pedestrians crossing either street. xx Behavioral Observations
Participants observed drivers traveling in the incorrect lanes, blocking intersections and crosswalks. In addition, drivers turning left to and from Santa Monica Boulevard had difficulty executing their movements during the permissive phases due to insufficient gaps in the opposing through movement. Pedestrians also lacked sufficient time to cross the street during the flash-don’t-walk phase (Figure 8). Pedestrians worry about missing the bus due to long signal phases.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 13
Figure 8 Pedestrians Crossing Street
Infrastructure Observations
Some infrastructure was in poor condition, such as faded pavement markings and missing truncated domes at the eastern leg of the intersection. Detailed behavioral and infrastructure observations are shown in Figure 9.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 14
Figure 9 Behavioral and Infrastructure Observations at Santa Monica Boulevard and 6th Street

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 15
Santa Monica Boulevard and 16th Street
Santa Monica Boulevard is an arterial road, while 16th Street is a neighborhood street, and they are a two-way street stop-controlled intersection with an RRFB on the eastern leg. Santa Monica Boulevard is free flowing with two lanes in each direction, while 16th street has one travel lane in each direction. Santa Monica Boulevard adjacent to this intersection has car dealerships and retail businesses and 16th Street has residential areas. Loading and/or parking are permitted starting at about 50 feet from the corner. There are three high visibility crosswalks and advance stop bars on the north, south, and eastern legs. The eastern crosswalk has a pedestrian refuge island.

Behavioral Observations
People driving fail to yield to pedestrians crossing the street. Drivers were also observed unable to complete a left turn from 16th Street due to high volumes of traffic and inadequate gaps on Santa Monica Boulevard, causing them to conduct a right turn instead. Pedestrians were also seen crossing at the unmarked area on the western leg of the intersection which caused some conflicts with vehicles. Additionally, pedestrians and individuals who use a wheelchair cross the street without activating the rectangular rapid flash beacon (RRFB) because the button is far from the curb ramp (Figure 10).

Figure 10 Individual in a Wheelchair Waiting to Cross the Street and Path of Travel Diagram Infrastructure Observations

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 16
While the crosswalk on the east side of Santa Monica Boulevard is enhanced with an RRFB, the path of travel from the pushbutton on the south side of the street to the street level via the truncated domes requires 30’ of additional travel for people using wheelchairs. The diagonal crosswalk also requires navigation in the gutter to move to the crosswalk. Detailed behavioral and infrastructure observations are shown in Figure 11.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 17
Figure 11 Behavioral and Infrastructure Observations at Santa Monica Boulevard and 16th Street

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 18
Santa Monica Boulevard and 18th Street
Santa Monica Boulevard at 18th Street is two-way street stop-controlled with an RFFB on the eastern leg. Santa Monica Boulevard is an arterial with two lanes in each direction, and 18th Street is a neighborhood street with one travel lane in each direction. Santa Monica Boulevard adjacent to this intersection primarily consists of car dealerships and retail areas, and 18th Street primarily consists of residential areas. Loading and/or parking are permitted starting at about 30 feet from the corner. It has three high visibility crosswalks, advance stop bars on the north and south legs, and advance yield lines (shark teeth) on the west and east leg.

Behavioral Observations
Drivers were observed obstructing pedestrian access by failing to yield to pedestrians and blocking crosswalks. Some vehicles parked on curb cuts, blocking sidewalk access and vehicles exiting parking lots. Additionally, parked vehicles caused visibility issues as they obstructed the views of drivers attempting left turns.

Infrastructure Observations
Truncated domes are missing on three of the four diagonal curb ramps. One of the RFFBs did not turn on when activated due to insufficient solar power caused by trees and buildings blocking sunlight (Figure 12). Detailed behavioral and infrastructure observations are shown in Figure 13.

Figure 12 RRFB not Activated

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 19
Figure 13 Behavioral and Infrastructure Observations at Santa Monica Boulevard and 18th Street

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 20
Santa Monica Boulevard and 20th Street
Santa Monica Boulevard at 20th Street is controlled by a traffic signal. Both Santa Monica Boulevard, an arterial, and 20th Street, a secondary avenue, are two lanes in each direction with a left turn pocket on each approach. Protected / permissive left turn phasing exists for all approaches. Santa Monica Boulevard’s land uses adjacent to this intersection consist of offices and retail, and 20th Street consists of offices and residential areas. Loading and/or parking are permitted starting at about 140 feet from the southern corner after the bus stop. It has high visibility crosswalks and advance stop bars at all legs.

Behavioral Observations
Drivers stop within the crosswalk at the northern leg of the intersection, blocking pedestrian access. Drivers had difficulty conducting left turns during the permissive phases due to insufficient gaps in the opposing through movement, causing some to maneuver around other vehicles without checking for pedestrians (Figure 14). Immediately east of the intersection, one driver made an illegal midblock U-turn, while another driver dropped off a passenger in a nostopping zone. The Police Department representative in attendance commented that this is a common occurrence and often blocks traffic in the through-lanes.

Figure 14 Driver Conducting a Left Turn during a Yellow Light Infrastructure Observations
Truncated domes are only installed at the northwest curb ramp, and none are present at the other three curb ramps. Additionally, the full tree canopy under the safety lighting may prevent

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 21
a full lighting of the crosswalk at night. Detailed behavioral and infrastructure observations are shown in Figure 15.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 22
Figure 15 Behavioral and Infrastructure Observations at Santa Monica Boulevard and 20th Street

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 23
Santa Monica Boulevard and 23rd Street
Santa Monica Boulevard at 23rd Street is controlled by a traffic signal, with no protected phases for turns. Santa Monica Boulevard, an arterial has two lanes in each direction with a left turn pocket on the east and west legs. The north and south legs of 23rd Street, a neighborhood street, are offset by 30 feet. The north leg is three lanes including one northbound lane and southbound through-left and right turn only lanes. The south leg is one way southbound. Santa Moncia Boulevard’s land uses adjacent to this intersection consist of a hospital, offices, and retail, and 23rd Street has residential areas. Loading and/or parking are permitted and varies starting at about 30-100 feet from the corner. It has high visibility crosswalks and advance stop bars at north, south, and west legs.

Behavioral Observations
Drivers approach this intersection from the east at high speeds and then periodically block the intersection due to downstream queues at 21st Street, despite the presence of ‘Keep Clear’ pavement markings and enforcement signs. Eastbound drivers making left turns onto 23rd Street also block the intersection. Observers noted a delivery truck parked along the red curb to unload goods, and a driver turning right onto 23rd Street failed to yield to pedestrians.

Participants noted that high vehicular volumes occur during pick-up and drop-off times at McKinley Elementary School.

Infrastructure Observations
The high-visibility crosswalk markings on the southern side of the intersection are faded and multiple corners lack truncated domes, posing accessibility barriers for pedestrians and individuals with mobility devices or cognitive challenges (Figure 16). An overgrown tree on the northwest sidewalk obstructs the traffic signal while its roots have cracked and caused vertical uplift of the sidewalks, creating a tripping hazard.

McKinley Elementary School is located on Santa Monica Boulevard between 23rd Street and Chelsea Avenue to the east. The school zone ends sign is missing westbound and there are no school zone speed limit signs eastbound for the school. Detailed behavioral and infrastructure observations are shown in Figure 17.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 24
Figure 16 Faded Crosswalks and Missing Truncated Domes at 23rd Street

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 25
Figure 17 Behavioral and Infrastructure Observations at Santa Monica Boulevard and 23rd Street

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 26
Santa Monica Boulevard and 26th Street
Santa Monica Boulevard at 26th Street is controlled by a traffic signal which includes protected/permissive left turn phases on all approaches. Santa Monica Boulevard, an arterial, is two lanes in each direction plus a left turn pocket, and 26th Street, a neighborhood street, has Class III bicycle facilities (aka “sharrows”) and one travel lane in each direction with dedicated right-turn and left-turn pockets. Santa Monica Boulevard adjacent to this intersection has retail stores, and 26th Street has residential areas. Loading and/or parking are permitted starting at about 75 feet from the corner. It has high visibility crosswalks and advance stop bars at all legs.

Behavioral Observations
People driving who were attempting left turns on to or off of Santa Monica Boulevard during permissive phases completed their turns when the traffic signal turned yellow or red, after waiting in the intersection. Additionally, vehicles were unable to enter the intersection due to upstream queuing and stopped in the crosswalks, blocking pedestrian access (Figure 18).

Figure 18 Driver Blocking Crosswalk
Infrastructure Observations
Truncated domes are missing at the southwest corner of the intersection, and crosswalks were faded. Detailed behavioral and infrastructure observations are shown in Figure 19.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 27
Figure 19 Behavioral and Infrastructure Observations at Santa Monica Boulevard and 26th Street

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 28
Santa Monica Boulevard and Stanford Street
Santa Monica Boulevard, an artierial, is not controlled at this location. As a two-way two lane neighborhood street, Stanford Street is stop-controlled. Santa Monica Boulevard is two lanes in each direction plus a left turn pocket, Stanford Street has one travel lane in each direction.

Santa Monica Boulevard’s land uses adjacent to this intersection consist of hotels, retail, and car dealerships, and Stanford Street has residential areas. This location has higher pedestrian demand due to the recent development of the coffee shop and yoga studio located at the southwest corner of the intersection. Loading and/or parking are permitted starting at about 30 feet from the corner. It has high visibility crosswalks and advance stop bars at the north and south legs only.

Behavioral Observations
No crosswalks are provided across Santa Monica Boulevard; however pedestrians were observed crossing at unmarked areas, causing safety concerns (Figure 20).

Figure 20 Pedestrian crossing Stanford Street

Infrastructure Observations
Curb ramps are not aligned with crosswalks, and truncated domes are missing at the western leg of the intersection. Detailed behavioral and infrastructure observations are shown in Figure 21.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 29
Figure 21 Behavioral and Infrastructure Observations at Santa Monica Boulevard and Stanford Street

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 30

CONCLUSION
Key Safety Issues and Opportunities
Based on the observations from the walk audit, potential improvement opportunities are listed below to improve safety, accessibility, and the overall travel experience along Santa Monica Boulevard.

Address inconsistent marked crosswalk installations.

All along the corridor, faded crosswalks limit their visibility to drivers. Future crosswalk maintenance and upgrades should include a consistent application of signs and pavement markings, including high visibility crosswalks, warning and regulatory signs, and sharks-teeth advanced yield bars.

Review existing marked crosswalks to determine their sufficiency according to Caltrans and Federal Highway Administration guidance. This guidance recommends countermeasures proven to increase pedestrian safety at marked crosswalks, dependent on speed, volume, number of lanes, and presence of a median.

Explore installation of marked crosswalks across north-south running streets to increase awareness for turning drivers that people are crossing along Santa Monica Boulevard.

Finally, evaluate the possibility of removing crossing prohibitions to legalize crossings at all four corners.

Explore strategies to create safer turning movements across the boulevard.

At many locations, drivers blocked intersections and crosswalks, while awaiting a sufficient gap to make a left turn. This causes conflicts with other road users, notably pedestrians and rollers.

At signalized locations, consider removing the permissive left turn phase to reduce crosswalk blocking, and the completion of turns during the red phase. At unsignalized locations, consider eliminating left turns at congested intersections, high-volume pedestrian intersections, and transit transfer points.

Install additional enhanced marked crosswalk opportunities Using best practice crossing spacing guidance, make and enhance additional crosswalks along Santa Monica Boulevard to increase pedestrian access at significant crossing locations.

Improve pedestrian infrastructure to meet best universal design practices.

Many intersections along Santa Monica Boulevard have incomplete infrastructure such as missing truncated domes and diagonal ramps that create a misalignment with crosswalks for

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study – Roadway Safety Audit Report DRAFT City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates | 31
people using the ramps. Create a more universal design for all users by replacing uneven sidewalk patches and diagonal access ramps.

Maintain landscape and infrastructure to improve visibility.

Overgrown trees obstruct drivers’ views of traffic signals, block solar energy for RRFBs, and block safety lighting from overhead streetlights. Additionally, parked vehicles near the intersection reduce visibility issues for both turning vehicles and pedestrians. The City of Santa Monica can enforce tree maintenance schedules and implement more conservative sight triangle dimensions to improve sightlines near intersections.

Develop strategies to improve traffic and safety around McKinley Elementary School.

The project can explore strategies needed to manage traffic during peak hours and install appropriate signage to improve safety and awareness around the school during pick-up and drop-off times.

Support transit riders.

The City of Santa Monica can coordinate internally and collaborate with LA Metro to align bus schedules, allowing passengers to easily connect to their transfer bus without concern of missing the bus or experiencing unnecessary delays. Other transit supportive concepts would include moving high transfer stops to the same crosswalk, to reduce delay for riders, and increase confidence that the signal and marked crossing infrastructure is designed to assure safe and efficient connections.

Address pedestrian signal wait times.

Evaluate and adjust pedestrian signal timing at intersection to reduce long wait times that may cause riders to cross against the signal to avoid missing a bus. Additionally, consider extending the pedestrian crossing phase to allow sufficient time for pedestrians to cross the street during the pedestrian phase.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) APPENDIX c.

OPERATIONS ANALYSIS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Level of Service Operations Assessment
Introduction
As part of the Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study, Michael Baker International has completed a traffic operations analysis to evaluate the baseline conditions of the corridor under the existing geometric conditions and compare the forecast vehicular operations with the proposed improvements. The overall study area covers the 2.4-mile corridor from Ocean Avenue to Centinela Avenue and includes a total of 29 study intersections consisting of 20 signalized locations and 9 unsignalized locations. This analysis considered existing count data as well as forecast future 2050 conditions.

Intersection Analysis Methodology
The HCM analysis methodology describes the operation of an intersection using a range of level of service from LOS A (free-flow conditions) to LOS F (severely congested conditions), based on the corresponding stopped delay, in terms of seconds per vehicle (sec/veh). The criteria for the LOS grade designations are provided in Table 1.

Synchro/SimTraffic version 12 analysis software was used to assess the intersection along the corridor.

Synchro reports average delays for a signalized intersection, which correspond to a particular LOS, to describe the overall operation of an intersection. Unsignalized intersection LOS for all-way stops is based on the average delay for all approaches. Delay for one-way or two-way stop controlled intersections is based on available gaps in traffic flow on the non-controlled approach and LOS is based on the approach with the worst delay.

Table 1: Level of Service Criteria for Intersections
Level of
Service
Control Delay (seconds/vehicle)
Description Signalized
Intersections
Unsignalized &
Roundabouts
LOS A < 10 < 10 Operations with very low delay and most vehicles do not stop.

LOS B >10 and ≤ 20 >10 and ≤ 15 Operations with good progression but with some restricted movements.

LOS C >20 and ≤ 35 >15 and ≤ 25 Operations where a significant number of vehicles are stopping with some backup and light congestion.

LOS D >35 and ≤55 >25 and ≤35
Operations where congestion is noticeable, longer delays occur, and many vehicles stop. The proportion of vehicles not stopping.

LOS E >55 and ≤ 80 >35 and ≤ 50 Operations where there is significant delay, extensive queuing, and poor progression.

LOS F >80 >50 Operations that are unacceptable to most drivers, when the arrival rates exceed the capacity of the intersection
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 7th Edition.

Note: If the volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) > 1.0, LOS = F.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Existing Conditions
To determine the existing operations of the study intersections, intersection turning movement counts were collected for weekdays and weekends. Weekday counts were collected on Tuesday, March 25, 2025, from 7:30 AM to 9:30 AM and from 5:00 PM to 7:00 PM. Weekend counts were collected on Saturday March 22, 2025, from 1:00 PM and 5:00 PM. The volumes utilized in this analysis were taken from the highest hour within the peak periods for weekday AM and PM conditions, as well as the Weekend Mid-Day condition.

The intersection data collection included pedestrian and bicycle counts, as well as a vehicle breakdown of passenger cars, heavy trucks, and transit vehicles. The count data was used as the basis for the Existing Year 2025 peak hour volumes.

Future Forecast 2050 Conditions
The Future Baseline Year 2050 volumes were developed by applying a linear annual growth rate of 0.33% per year to the Existing Year 2025 traffic volumes. This results in a total growth of approximately 8.25% between 2025 and 2050. The growth rate was determined based on Southern California Associate of Governments’ socio-economic data for the City of Santa Monica.

The analysis results in the following table show operations along the corridor for both conditions. As shown, under the existing baseline conditions (without the proposed improvements), poor operations are expected at various locations throughout the corridor, primarily stop-controlled intersections. With the implementation of the proposed improvements, the operations along the corridor are anticipated to generally improve.

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Traffic Operation Analysis Results
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay3LOS Delay3LOS Delay3LOS Delay3LOS Delay 3 LOS Delay
3 LOS
1 Santa Monica Blvd / Ocean Ave Signal w/LPI Signal w/LPI Signal 14.9 B 15.4 B 15.7 B 16.4 B 15.1 B 15.6 B 15.2 B 17.4 B 16.1 B 16.7 B 17.0 B 16.9 B 2 Santa Monica Blvd / 2nd St Signal w/ LPI Signal w/ LPI Signal 22.9 C 26.0 C 24.0 C 22.3 C 25.2 C 24.4 C 23.1 C 26.3 C 24.4 C 22.3 C 28.2 C 26.8 C 3 Santa Monica Blvd / 3rd St Promenade Signal Signal Signal 0.9 A 1.1 A 1.1 A 1.9 A 2.2 A 2.4 A 0.9 A 1.1 A 1.1 A 1.9 A 2.1 A 2.5 A 4 Santa Monica Blvd / 4th St Signal w/ LPI Signal w/ LPI Signal 30.9 C 26.6 C 26.1 C 30.7 C 28.0 C 26.9 C 30.7 C 27.4 C 26.8 C 30.9 C 29.9 C 29.7 C 5 Santa Monica Blvd / 5th St Signal w/ LPI Signal w/ LPI Signal 23.9 C 25.0 C 24.5 C 26.6 C 24.8 C 24.5 C 23.6 C 25.2 C 25.3 C 26.3 C 26.2 C 26.7 C 6 Santa Monica Blvd / 6th St Signal w/ LPI Signal w/ LPI Signal 13.0 B 15.6 B 10.4 B 16.1 B 21.4 C 14.0 B 13.0 B 15.6 B 10.4 B 16.2 B 23.8 C 14.7 B 7 Santa Monica Blvd / 7th St Signal w/ LPI Signal w/ LPI Signal 14.1 B 15.7 B 15.6 B 18.6 B 19.1 B 18.5 B 14.1 B 15.9 B 15.9 B 18.6 B 19.8 B 18.6 B 8 Santa Monica Blvd / Lincoln Blvd Signal Signal Signal 25.1 C 23.1 C 22.3 C 33.9 C 35.8 D 34.4 C 29.6 C 25.2 C 23.7 C 42.5 D 40.1 D 37.0 D 9 Santa Monica Blvd / 10th St TWSC TWSC TWSC119.7 C 22.6 C 21.3 C 10.6 B 11.3 B 11.1 B 22.1 C 26.4 D 24.8 C 10.9 B 11.6 B 11.4 B 10 Santa Monica Blvd / 11th St Signal Signal Signal 20.0 C 19.2 B 18.7 B 28.8 C 29.5 C 27.2 C 20.5 C 18.9 B 18.9 B 32.7 C 30.0 C 32.0 C 11 Santa Monica Blvd / 14th St Signal Signal Signal 16.9 B 16.2 B 9.4 A 24.9 C 25.6 C 22.4 C 17.0 B 16.5 B 10.7 B 24.6 C 27.0 C 23.3 C 12 Santa Monica Blvd / 15th St TWSC TWSC TWSC146.7 E 57.4 F 135.6 F 11.9 B 12.9 B 13.6 B 74.9 F 95.1 F 279.5 F 12.3 B 13.4 B 14.3 B 13 Santa Monica Blvd / 16th St TWSC TWSC TWSC137.8 E 99.3 F 84.1 F 11.8 B 12.9 B 13.2 B 51.2 F 189.1 F 157.6 F 12.1 B 13.4 B 13.9 B 14 Santa Monica Blvd / 17th St Signal w/ LPI Signal w/ LPI Signal 17.0 B 16.8 B 15.2 B 23.9 C 17.9 B 19.3 B 18.0 B 18.4 B 16.3 B 23.8 C 25.2 C 22.6 C 15 Santa Monica Blvd / 18th St TWSC TWSC TWSC124.1 C 39.5 E 38.5 E 11.3 B 12.8 B 13.3 B 28.8 D 50.8 F 48.0 E 11.7 B 13.3 B 14.0 B 16 Santa Monica Blvd / 19th St TWSC TWSC TWSC130.9 D 48.8 E 30.4 D 12.1 B 13.0 B 13.2 B 41.7 E 74.1 F 39.5 E 12.6 B 13.6 B 13.8 B 17 Santa Monica Blvd / 20th St Signal w/ LPI Signal w/ LPI Signal 39.0 D 27.3 C 32.1 C 37.0 D 32.5 C 26.4 C 39.3 D 29.2 C 33.9 C 39.7 D 36.9 D 30.9 C 18 Santa Monica Blvd / 21st St Signal w/ LPI Signal w/ LPI Signal 2.8 A 2.3 A 6.6 A 6.6 A 6.7 A 6.3 A 13.4 B 2.3 A 6.7 A 8.2 A 5.2 A 5.4 A 19 Santa Monica Blvd / 22nd St Signal w/ LPI Signal w/ LPI Signal 2.7 A 2.7 A 4.3 A 7.3 A 9.0 A 5.0 A 3.3 A 2.6 A 5.7 A 7.9 A 5.2 A 2.9 A 20 Santa Monica Blvd / 23rd St Signal w/LPI Signal w/LPI Signal 11.6 B 5.7 A 11.5 B 13.2 B 12.4 B 12.1 B 13.1 B 6.0 A 11.7 B 13.7 B 10.6 B 9.8 A 21 Santa Monica Blvd / Cloverfield Blvd Signal Signal Signal 6.3 A 9.5 A 0.4 A 32.4 C 37.7 D 41.4 D 6.7 A 10.0 B 0.5 A 36.4 D 55.9 E 51.6 D 22 Santa Monica Blvd / Chelsea Ave TWSC Signal TWSC/Signal229.3 D 27.6 D 27.5 D 23.9 C 52.8 D 43.9 D 37.8 E 38.8 E 37.2 E 32.1 C 47.9 D 56.8 E 23 Santa Monica Blvd / 26th St Signal w/ LPI Signal w/ LPI Signal 25.8 C 23.6 C 22.8 C 25.1 C 25.4 C 24.5 C 24.7 C 23.8 C 23.8 C 27.6 C 23.7 C 24.3 C 24 Santa Monica Blvd / Princeton St TWSC TWSC TWSC133.7 D 57.7 F 34.3 D 15.9 C 14.2 B 13.1 B 40.8 E 85.8 F 42.4 E 17.0 C 15.1 C 13.7 B 25 Santa Monica Blvd / Yale St Signal w/ LPI Signal w/ LPI Signal 17.9 B 23.2 C 12.8 B 14.2 B 19.0 B 12.3 B 20.8 C 24.8 C 13.6 B 15.9 B 20.8 C 13.0 B 26 Santa Monica Blvd / Stanford St TWSC TWSC TWSC145.7 E 80.1 F 42.8 E 13.9 B 14.7 B 12.6 B 67.9 F 125.5 F 58.3 F 14.7 B 15.6 C 13.2 B 27 Santa Monica Blvd / Berkeley St Signal w/ LPI Signal w/ LPI Signal 10.9 B 12.4 B 11.5 B 15.6 B 13.0 B 15.9 B 11.2 B 13.2 B 12.0 B 16.1 B 13.3 B 16.1 B 28 Santa Monica Blvd / Franklin St TWSC TWSC TWSC138.3 E 95.1 F 48.9 E 14.1 B 14.8 B 13.1 B 46.7 E 194.4 F 67.9 F 15.0 C 15.7 C 13.7 B 29 Santa Monica Blvd / Centinela Ave Signal w/ LPI Signal w/ LPI Signal 21.6 C 22.0 C 16.8 B 22.2 C 23.6 C 17.4 B 20.6 C 25.3 C 17.7 B 21.2 C 28.2 C 18.5 B Note: Deficient intersection oepration indicated in red shading. 1 TWSC = Two Way Stop Control
2 The intesection of Santa Monica Blvd & Chelsea Blvd is Two Way Stop Controlled in the existing condition and singalized in the With Improvement condition. 3 Delay shown as average seconds of delay per vehicle
Intersection Weekday AM Weekday PM Weekend Midday Weekday AM Existing Year 2025
Control Weekday AM Weekday PM Weekend Midday Weekday PM Future Year 2050 With Improvements
Weekend Midday
Future Year 2050
Weekday AM Weekday PM Weekend Midday
Existing Year 2025 With Improvements

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) APPENDIX d.

COST ESTIMATES

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD IMPROVMENTS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

ROM ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Prepared December 18, 2025
Job Number: 202369
TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $4,247,000
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $2,152,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $6,399,000
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $1,279,800
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $7,678,800
TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $1,230,000
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $655,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $1,885,000
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $377,000
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $2,262,000

FOCUS INTERSECTIONS

ADDED INTERSECTIONS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD IMPROVMENTS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

ROM ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE
Prepared December 18, 2025
Job Number: 202369
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes Phase
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $7,000.00 $7,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $3,000.00 $3,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Lead Pestrian Interval's) $22,500.00 $22,500 1 TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $22,500
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $14,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $36,500
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $7,300
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $43,800
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes Phase
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $7,000.00 $7,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $3,000.00 $3,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (No Right-Turn on Red) $22,500.00 $22,500 1 TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $22,500
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $14,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $36,500
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $7,300
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $43,800
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes Phase
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $7,000.00 $7,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $3,000.00 $3,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (No Right-Turn on Red) $22,500.00 $22,500 1 TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $22,500
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $14,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $36,500
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $7,300
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $43,800
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes Phase
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $7,000.00 $7,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $3,000.00 $3,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (No Right-Turn on Red) $22,500.00 $22,500 1 TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $22,500
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $14,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $36,500
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $7,300
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $43,800

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / Ocean Avenue

GENERAL

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / 2nd Street

GENERAL

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / 4th Street

GENERAL

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / 5th Street

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes Phase
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $6,000.00 $6,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $33,000.00 $33,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $6,000.00 $6,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $11,000.00 $11,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 1 LS Signing & Striping $8,000.00 $8,000 1
6 1 LS Green Paint $2,000.00 $2,000 1
7 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Intersection Scramble) $22,500.00 $22,500 1 8 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Pedestrian Push Buttons) $75,000.00 $75,000 1 TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $107,500
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $56,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $163,500
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $32,700
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $196,200
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes Phase
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $9,000.00 $9,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $50,000.00 $50,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $9,000.00 $9,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $17,000.00 $17,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 1 LS Grind and Remove Existing Striping and Pavement Markings $1,000.00 $1,000 1 6 100 LF Removal of Curb & Gutter $12.00 $1,200 *Curb & gutter removal for curb extenstions. 2 7 30 CY Removal of AC Pavement, Base & Subgrade (14") $350.00 $10,500 *AC pavement removal for curb extenstions. 2 8 1 LS Signing & Striping $22,000.00 $22,000 1
9 6 EA ADA Compliant Curb Ramp $9,000.00 $54,000 2
10 2 EA Curb Extension (Bulb-out) $11,000.00 $22,000 2
11 16 EA Bollards $200.00 $3,200 1
12 10 EA Hardend Centerline Treatments $200.00 $2,000 1 13 1 EA Relocate Fire Hydrant $20,000.00 $20,000 2
14 2 EA Relocate Light Pole $15,000.00 $30,000 2
15 TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $165,900
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $85,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $250,900
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $50,180
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $301,080
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes Phase
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $11,000.00 $11,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $66,000.00 $66,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $11,000.00 $11,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $22,000.00 $22,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 1 LS Grind and Remove Existing Striping and Pavement Markings $1,000.00 $1,000 6 100 LF Removal of Curb & Gutter $6.00 $600 *Curb & gutter removal for curb extenstions. 7 30 CY Removal of AC Pavement, Base & Subgrade (14") $350.00 $10,500 *AC pavement removal for curb extenstions. 8 1 LS Signing & Striping $25,000.00 $25,000
9 6 EA ADA Compliant Curb Ramp $9,000.00 $54,000
10 2 EA Curb Extension (Bulb-out) $11,000.00 $22,000
11 16 EA Bollards $200.00 $3,200
12 10 EA Hardend Centerline Treatments $200.00 $2,000
13 1 EA Relocate Catch Basin $60,000.00 $60,000
14 2 EA Proposed Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) $20,000.00 $40,000 *Price per RRFB head.

TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $218,300
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $110,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $328,300
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $65,660
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $393,960
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / 7th Street

GENERAL

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / 9th Street

GENERAL

DEMOLITION
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / 12th Street

GENERAL

DEMOLITION

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes Phase
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $9,000.00 $9,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $50,000.00 $50,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $9,000.00 $9,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $17,000.00 $17,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 1 LS Grind and Remove Existing Striping and Pavement Markings $1,000.00 $1,000 1 6 100 LF Removal of Curb & Gutter $12.00 $1,200 *Curb & gutter removal for curb extenstions. 2 7 30 CY Removal of AC Pavement, Base & Subgrade (14") $350.00 $10,500 *AC pavement removal for curb extenstions. 2 8 1 LS Signing & Striping $22,000.00 $22,000 1
9 6 EA ADA Compliant Curb Ramp $9,000.00 $54,000 2
10 2 EA Curb Extension (Bulb-out) $11,000.00 $22,000 2
11 16 EA Bollards $200.00 $3,200 1
12 10 EA Hardend Centerline Treatments $200.00 $2,000 1 13 1 EA Relocate Fire Hydrant $20,000.00 $20,000 2
14 2 EA Relocate Light Pole $15,000.00 $30,000 2
15 TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $165,900
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $85,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $250,900
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $50,180
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $301,080
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes Phase
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $7,000.00 $7,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $3,000.00 $3,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Lead Pestrian Interval's) $22,500.00 $22,500 1 TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $22,500
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $14,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $36,500
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $7,300
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $43,800
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes Phase
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $7,000.00 $7,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $3,000.00 $3,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Lead Pestrian Interval's) $22,500.00 $22,500 1 TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $22,500
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $14,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $36,500
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $7,300
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $43,800
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes Phase
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $7,000.00 $7,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $3,000.00 $3,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Lead Pestrian Interval's) $22,500.00 $22,500 1 TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $22,500
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $14,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $36,500
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $7,300
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $43,800

DEMOLITION

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / Euclid Street

GENERAL

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / 17th Street

GENERAL

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / 21st Street

GENERAL

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / 22nd Street

GENERAL

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes Phase
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $7,000.00 $7,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $3,000.00 $3,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Lead Pestrian Interval's) $22,500.00 $22,500 1 TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $22,500
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $14,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $36,500
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $7,300
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $43,800
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes Phase
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $7,000.00 $7,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $3,000.00 $3,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Lead Pestrian Interval's) $22,500.00 $22,500 1 TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $22,500
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $14,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $36,500
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $7,300
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $43,800
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes Phase
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $1,000.00 $1,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $4,000.00 $4,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $1,000.00 $1,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 1 LS Grind and Remove Existing Striping and Pavement Markings $1,000.00 $1,000 1 6 1 LS Signing & Striping $7,000.00 $7,000 1
7 16 EA Bollards $200.00 $3,200 1
8 TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $11,200
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $8,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $19,200
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $3,840
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $23,040
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $15,000.00 $15,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $87,000.00 $87,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $15,000.00 $15,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $29,000.00 $29,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 110 CY Removal of AC Pavement, Base & Subgrade (14") $350.00 $38,500 *Full depth replacement used for medians. 6 1 LS Signing & Striping $24,000.00 $24,000
7 4 EA ADA Compliant Curb Ramp $9,000.00 $36,000
8 1 EA Landscaped Raised Median $83,700.00 $83,700
9 12 EA Bollards $200.00 $2,400
10 1 EA Pedestrian Refuge $15,000.00 $15,000 *Assumed cost of a ADA compliant curb ramp. 11 3 EA Proposed Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) $30,000.00 $90,000 *Price per RRFB head.

TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $289,600
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $146,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $435,600
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $87,120
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $522,720
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / 23rd Steet

GENERAL

DEMOLITION

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS

GENERAL

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / Cloverfield Boulevard

GENERAL
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / Harvard Street
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / 25th Street

GENERAL

DEMOLITION

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes Phase
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $8,000.00 $8,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $3,000.00 $3,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 1 LS Signing & Striping $300.00 $300 1
6 1 LS Green Paint $3,000.00 $3,000 1
7 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Lead Pestrian Interval's) $22,500.00 $22,500 1 TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $25,800
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $15,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $40,800
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $8,160
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $48,960
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes Phase
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $1,000.00 $1,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $6,000.00 $6,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $1,000.00 $1,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 6 2 EA Bus Stop Relocation $10,000.00 $20,000 1
7 TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $20,000
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $10,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $30,000
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $6,000
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $36,000
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes Phase
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $7,000.00 $7,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $2,000.00 $2,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $3,000.00 $3,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Lead Pestrian Interval's) $22,500.00 $22,500 1 TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $22,500
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $14,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $36,500
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $7,300
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $43,800

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / Centinela Avenue

GENERAL

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / Berkeley Street

GENERAL

DEMOLITION

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / Yale Street

GENERAL

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD IMPROVMENTS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

ROM ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Prepared December 18, 2025
Job Number: 202369
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $16,000.00 $16,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $94,000.00 $94,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $16,000.00 $16,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $32,000.00 $32,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 300 LF Removal of Curb & Gutter $12.00 $3,600 *Curb & gutter removal for curb extenstions. 6 100 CY Removal of AC Pavement, Base & Subgrade (14") $350.00 $35,000 *AC pavement removal for curb extenstions & bus pads. 7 1 LS Signing & Striping $20,000.00 $20,000
8 1 LS Green Paint $5,000.00 $5,000
9 4 EA ADA Compliant Curb Ramp $9,000.00 $36,000
10 1 EA Curb Extension (Full Corner Bulb-out) $18,000.00 $18,000 11 1 EA Tranist Curb Extention $25,000.00 $25,000
12 1 EA PCC Bus Pad $40,000.00 $40,000
13 1 EA Bus Stop Relocation $10,000.00 $10,000
14 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Intersection Scramble) $22,500.00 $22,500 15 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (No Right-Turn on Red) $22,500.00 $22,500 16 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Pedestrian Push Buttons) $75,000.00 $75,000 TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $312,600
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $158,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $470,600
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $94,120
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $564,720
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / 6th St

GENERAL

DEMOLITION

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD IMPROVMENTS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

ROM ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Prepared December 18, 2025
Job Number: 202369
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $15,000.00 $15,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $87,000.00 $87,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $15,000.00 $15,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $29,000.00 $29,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 105 LF Removal of Curb & Gutter $12.00 $1,260 *Curb & gutter removal for curb extensions. 6 50 CY Removal of AC Pavement, Base & Subgrade (14") $350.00 $17,500 *AC pavement removal for curb extenstions & bus pads. 7 1 LS Signing & Striping $11,000.00 $11,000
8 3 EA ADA Compliant Curb Ramp $9,000.00 $27,000
9 1 EA Transit Curb Extension $25,000.00 $25,000
10 1 EA PCC Bus Pad $40,000.00 $40,000
11 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Lead Pedestrian Interval's) $22,500.00 $22,500 12 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Queue Jump) $22,500.00 $22,500 13 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Projected Left-turns) $45,000.00 $45,000 14 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Pedestrian Push Buttons) $75,000.00 $75,000 TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $286,760
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $146,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $432,760
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $86,552
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $519,312
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / Lincoln Boulevard

GENERAL

DEMOLITION

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD IMPROVMENTS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

ROM ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Prepared December 18, 2025
Job Number: 202369
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $14,000.00 $14,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $80,000.00 $80,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $14,000.00 $14,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $27,000.00 $27,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 180 LF Removal of Curb & Gutter $12.00 $2,160 *Curb & gutter removal for curb extenstions. 6 60 CY Removal of AC Pavement, Base & Subgrade (14") $350.00 $21,000 *AC pavement removal for curb extenstions. 7 1 LS Signing & Striping $22,000.00 $22,000
8 6 EA ADA Compliant Curb Ramp $9,000.00 $54,000
9 2 EA Curb Extension (Bulb-out) $11,000.00 $22,000
10 1 EA Curb Extension (Full Corner Bulb-out) $18,000.00 $18,000 11 16 EA Bollards $200.00 $3,200
12 10 EA Hardend Centerline Treatments $200.00 $2,000 *Assumes use of bollards for centerline treatments. 13 1 EA Relocate Catch Basin $60,000.00 $60,000 *Assumes use of bollards for centerline treatments. 14 2 EA Proposed Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) $30,000.00 $60,000 *Price per RRFB head.

TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $264,360
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $135,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $399,360
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $79,872
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $479,232
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / 10th St

GENERAL

DEMOLITION

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD IMPROVMENTS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

ROM ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Prepared December 18, 2025
Job Number: 202369
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes

GENERAL
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $15,000.00 $15,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $85,000.00 $85,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $15,000.00 $15,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $29,000.00 $29,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general.

DEMOLITION
5 10 CY Removal of AC Pavement, Base & Subgrade (14") $350.00 $3,500 *Full depth replacement used for bus pads.

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
6 1 LS Signing & Striping $11,000.00 $11,000
7 1 LS Green Paint $4,000.00 $4,000
8 8 EA ADA Compliant Curb Ramp $9,000.00 $72,000
9 1 EA Bus Stop Relocation $10,000.00 $10,000
10 1 EA PCC Bus Pad $40,000.00 $40,000

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
11 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Lead Pestrian Interval's) $22,500.00 $22,500 12 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Projected Left-turns) $45,000.00 $45,000 13 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Pedestrian Push Buttons) $75,000.00 $75,000 TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $283,000
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $144,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $427,000
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $85,400
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $512,400
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / 11th St

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD IMPROVMENTS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

ROM ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Prepared December 18, 2025
Job Number: 202369
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes

GENERAL
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $14,000.00 $14,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $83,000.00 $83,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $14,000.00 $14,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $28,000.00 $28,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general.

DEMOLITION
5 20 CY Removal of AC Pavement, Base & Subgrade (14") $350.00 $7,000 *Full depth replacement used for bus pads. 6 8 EA ADA Compliant Curb Ramp $9,000.00 $72,000
7 2 EA Bus Stop Relocation $10,000.00 $20,000
8 2 EA PCC Bus Pad $40,000.00 $80,000
9 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Lead Pestrian Interval's) $22,500.00 $22,500 10 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Pedestrian Push Buttons) $75,000.00 $75,000 TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $276,500
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $139,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $415,500
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $83,100
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $498,600
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / 14th St

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD IMPROVMENTS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

ROM ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Prepared December 18, 2025
Job Number: 202369
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $12,000.00 $12,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $69,000.00 $69,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $12,000.00 $12,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $23,000.00 $23,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 180 LF Removal of Curb & Gutter $12.00 $2,160 *Curb & gutter removal for curb extenstions. 6 60 CY Removal of AC Pavement, Base & Subgrade (14") $350.00 $21,000 *AC pavement removal for curb extenstions. 7 1 LS Signing & Striping $16,000.00 $16,000
8 6 EA ADA Compliant Curb Ramp $9,000.00 $54,000
9 2 EA Curb Extension (Bulb-out) $11,000.00 $22,000
10 1 EA Curb Extension (Full Corner Bulb-out) $18,000.00 $18,000 11 16 EA Bollards $200.00 $3,200
12 8 EA Hardend Centerline Treatments $200.00 $1,600 *Assumes use of bollards for centerline treatments. 13 1 EA Relocate Catch Basin $60,000.00 $60,000
14 2 EA Relocate Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) $15,000.00 $30,000 *Price per RRFB head.

TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $227,960
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $116,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $343,960
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $68,792
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $412,752
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / 15th St

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS

GENERAL

DEMOLITION

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD IMPROVMENTS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

ROM ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Prepared December 18, 2025
Job Number: 202369
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $15,000.00 $15,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $90,000.00 $90,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $15,000.00 $15,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $30,000.00 $30,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 360 LF Removal of Curb & Gutter $12.00 $4,320 *Curb & gutter removal for curb extenstions. 6 70 CY Removal of AC Pavement, Base & Subgrade (14") $350.00 $24,500 *Full depth replacement for curb extensions and median. 7 7 TN Construct AC Pavement $240.00 $1,680 *AC pavement used for existing median. 8 5 CY Construct Class II AB $110.00 $495 *Class II AB used for reconstruction of road. 9 1 LS Signing & Striping $18,000.00 $18,000
10 6 EA ADA Compliant Curb Ramp $9,000.00 $54,000
11 2 EA Curb Extension (Bulb-out) $11,000.00 $22,000
12 1 EA Curb Extension (Full Corner Bulb-out) $18,000.00 $18,000 13 16 EA Bollards $200.00 $3,200
14 8 EA Hardend Centerline Treatments $200.00 $1,600 *Assumes use of bollards for centerline treatments. 15 2 EA Relocate Catch Basin $60,000.00 $120,000
16 2 EA Relocate Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) $15,000.00 $30,000 *Price per RRFB head.

TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $297,795
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $150,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $447,795
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $89,559
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $537,354
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / 16th St

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS

DEMOLITION

GENERAL

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD IMPROVMENTS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

ROM ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Prepared December 18, 2025
Job Number: 202369
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes

GENERAL
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $11,000.00 $11,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $63,000.00 $63,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $11,000.00 $11,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $21,000.00 $21,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general.

DEMOLITION
5 130 LF Removal of Curb & Gutter $12.00 $1,560 *Curb & gutter removal for curb extenstions. 6 40 CY Removal of AC Pavement, Base & Subgrade (14") $350.00 $14,000 *AC pavement removal for curb extenstions.

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
7 1 LS Signing & Striping $15,000.00 $15,000
8 6 EA ADA Compliant Curb Ramp $9,000.00 $54,000
9 1 EA Curb Extension (Bulb-out) $11,000.00 $11,000
10 1 EA Curb Extension (Full Corner Bulb-out) $18,000.00 $18,000 11 16 EA Bollards $200.00 $3,200
11 8 EA Hardend Centerline Treatments $200.00 $1,600 *Assumes use of bollards for centerline treatments. 12 1 EA Relocate Catch Basin $60,000.00 $60,000
13 2 EA Relocate Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) $15,000.00 $30,000 *Price per RRFB head.

TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $208,360
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $106,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $314,360
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $62,872
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $377,232
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / 18th St

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD IMPROVMENTS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

ROM ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Prepared December 18, 2025
Job Number: 202369
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $16,000.00 $16,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $93,000.00 $93,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $16,000.00 $16,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $31,000.00 $31,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 200 LF Removal of Curb & Gutter $12.00 $2,400 *Curb & gutter removal for curb extenstions. 6 70 CY Removal of AC Pavement, Base & Subgrade (14") $350.00 $24,500 *AC pavement removal for curb extenstions. 7 1 LS Signing & Striping $15,000.00 $15,000
8 6 EA ADA Compliant Curb Ramp $9,000.00 $54,000
9 1 EA Curb Extension (Bulb-out) $11,000.00 $11,000
10 2 EA Curb Extension (Full Corner Bulb-out) $18,000.00 $36,000 11 16 EA Bollards $200.00 $3,200
12 8 EA Hardend Centerline Treatments $200.00 $1,600 *Assumes use of bollards for centerline treatments. 13 2 EA Relocate Catch Basin $60,000.00 $120,000
13 2 EA Proposed Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) $20,000.00 $40,000 *Price per RRFB head.

TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $307,700
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $156,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $463,700
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $92,740
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $556,440
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / 19th St

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS

DEMOLITION

GENERAL

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD IMPROVMENTS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

ROM ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Prepared December 18, 2025
Job Number: 202369
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $7,000.00 $7,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $42,000.00 $42,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $7,000.00 $7,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $14,000.00 $14,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 8 EA ADA Compliant Curb Ramp $9,000.00 $72,000
6 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Projected Left-turns) $45,000.00 $45,000 7 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (No Right-Turn on Red) $22,500.00 $22,500 TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $139,500
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $70,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $209,500
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $41,900
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $251,400
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / 20th St

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS

GENERAL

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD IMPROVMENTS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

ROM ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Prepared December 18, 2025
Job Number: 202369
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $27,000.00 $27,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $158,000.00 $158,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $27,000.00 $27,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $53,000.00 $53,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 60 CY Removal of AC Pavement, Base & Subgrade (14") $350.00 $21,000 *Full depth replacement used for medians. 6 1 LS Signing & Striping $11,000.00 $11,000
7 1 LS Green Paint $5,000.00 $5,000
8 5 EA ADA Compliant Curb Ramp $9,000.00 $45,000
9 1 LS Landscaped & Decorative Raised Median $56,000.00 $56,000 10 1 EA Pedestrian Refuge $15,000.00 $15,000
11 1 EA HAWK Signal $350,000.00 $350,000
12 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (No Right-Turn on Red) $22,500.00 $22,500 TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $525,500
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $265,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $790,500
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $158,100
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $948,600
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / Chelsea Ave

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS

DEMOLITION

GENERAL

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD IMPROVMENTS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

ROM ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Prepared December 18, 2025
Job Number: 202369
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $16,000.00 $16,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $95,000.00 $95,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $16,000.00 $16,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $32,000.00 $32,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general. 5 200 LF Removal of Curb & Gutter $12.00 $2,400 *Curb & gutter removal for curb extenstions. 6 40 CY Removal of AC Pavement, Base & Subgrade (14") $350.00 $14,000 *Full depth replacement used for bus pads. 7 6 EA ADA Compliant Curb Ramp $9,000.00 $54,000
8 1 EA Curb Extension (Bulb-out) $11,000.00 $11,000
9 2 EA Tranist Curb Extenstion $25,000.00 $50,000
10 2 EA PCC Bus Pad $40,000.00 $80,000
11 1 EA Relocate Catch Basin $60,000.00 $60,000
12 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Lead Pestrian Interval's) $22,500.00 $22,500 13 1 EA Traffic Signal Modification (Queue Jump) $22,500.00 $22,500 TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $316,400
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $159,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $475,400
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $95,080
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $570,480
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / 26th St

GENERAL

DEMOLITION

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD IMPROVMENTS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

ROM ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Prepared December 18, 2025
Job Number: 202369
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes

GENERAL
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $12,000.00 $12,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $68,000.00 $68,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $12,000.00 $12,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $23,000.00 $23,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general.

DEMOLITION
5 40 CY Removal of AC Pavement, Base & Subgrade (14") $350.00 $11,500 *Full depth replacement used for medians.

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
6 1 LS Signing & Striping $19,000.00 $19,000
7 6 EA ADA Compliant Curb Ramp $9,000.00 $54,000
8 1 EA Landscaped Raised Median $31,600.00 $31,600
9 22 EA Bollards $200.00 $4,400
10 1 EA Pedestrian Refuge $15,000.00 $15,000 *Assumed cost of a ADA compliant curb ramp.

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
11 3 EA Proposed Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) $30,000.00 $90,000 *Price per RRFB head.

TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $225,500
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $115,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $340,500
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $68,100
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $408,600
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / Princeton St

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD IMPROVMENTS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

ROM ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Prepared December 18, 2025
Job Number: 202369
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes

GENERAL
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $15,000.00 $15,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $88,000.00 $88,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $15,000.00 $15,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $30,000.00 $30,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general.

DEMOLITION
5 110 CY Removal of AC Pavement, Base & Subgrade (14") $350.00 $38,500 *Full depth replacement used for medians.

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
6 1 LS Signing & Striping $24,000.00 $24,000
7 4 EA ADA Compliant Curb Ramp $9,000.00 $36,000
8 1 EA Landscaped Raised Median $85,100.00 $85,100
9 12 EA Bollards $200.00 $2,400
10 1 EA Pedestrian Refuge $15,000.00 $15,000 *Assumed cost of a ADA compliant curb ramp.

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
11 3 EA Proposed Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) $30,000.00 $90,000 *Price per RRFB head.

TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $291,000
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $148,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $439,000
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $87,800
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $526,800
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / Stanford St

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD IMPROVMENTS

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

ROM ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY
Prepared December 18, 2025
Job Number: 202369
Item No. Approximate
Quantity Unit Item Unit Price Total Notes

GENERAL
1 1 LS Utility Relocations $15,000.00 $15,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 2 1 LS Mobilization, Demolition, Excavation, and Traffic Control $86,000.00 $86,000 *Assumes 30% of total excluding general. 3 1 LS Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan $15,000.00 $15,000 *Assumes 5% of total excluding general. 4 1 LS Field Orders $29,000.00 $29,000 *Assumes 10% of total excluding general.

DEMOLITION
5 110 CY Removal of AC Pavement, Base & Subgrade (14") $350.00 $35,700 *Full depth replacement used for medians.

SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS
6 1 LS Signing & Striping $19,000.00 $19,000
7 4 EA ADA Compliant Curb Ramp $9,000.00 $36,000
8 1 EA Landscaped Raised Median $85,700.00 $85,700
9 12 EA Bollards $200.00 $2,400
10 1 EA Pedestrian Refuge $15,000.00 $15,000 *Assumed cost of a ADA compliant curb ramp.

TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS
11 3 EA Proposed Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) $30,000.00 $90,000 *Price per RRFB head.

TOTAL EXCLUDING GENERAL SUBTOTAL $283,800
TOTAL GENERAL ONLY SUBTOTAL $145,000
RAW SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL $428,800
20% CONTINGENCY SUBTOTAL $85,760
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL TOTAL $514,560
Intersection: Santa Monica Boulevard / Franklin St

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) APPENDIX E.

CONCEPT PLANS

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) JACK IN THE BOX SANTA MONICA TAILOR BY BELLO MOBIL BURTON HEARING AID CENTER HYUNDAI SANTA MONICA Study Intersection #2 Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study Concepts Lincoln Boulevard LEGEND CURB BACK OF SIDEWALK LANE STRIPE BIKE LANE CONFLICT AREA PARKING SPACE STRIPE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SIDEWALK STREET CONCRETE BUS LANDING EXISTING BUS STOP PROPOSED CURB RAMP N40 20SCALE: 1"=40'
0 40 IMPROVEMENTS TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION - LEAD PEDESTRIAN INTERVALS (LPI'S) TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION - TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY TRAVELING WESTBOUND (QUEUE JUMP) TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION - PROTECTED LEFT-TURN TRAVELING EASTBOUND PROPOSED SIDEWALK EXTENSION FOR NEAR-SIDE TRANSIT STOP INSTALLATION OF ACTIVATED PUSH BUTTONS INSTALLATION OF PAINTED CURB STRIPING 11.A.a Packet Pg. 512
Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

SOUTHLAND CREDIT UNION GOODWILL SANTA MONICA PUBLIC LIBRARY TAR & ROSES EX. PARKLET
Study Intersection #1 Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study Concepts 6th Street LEGEND CURB BACK OF SIDEWALK LANE STRIPE BIKE LANE CONFLICT AREA PARKING SPACE STRIPE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SIDEWALK STREET CONCRETE BUS LANDING EXISTING PARKLET EXISTING BUS STOP PROPOSED BUS STOP N40 20SCALE: 1"=40'
0 40 IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLATION OF PEDESTRIAN SCRAMBLE PHASE WITH DIAGONAL CROSSING AND ACTIVATED PUSH BUTTONS NO RIGHT-TURN ON RED FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED ADA CURB RAMP PROPOSED EXTENSION FOR NEAR-SIDE TRANSIT STOP CURB EXTENSIONS ON SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD (PENDING TRUCK TURN TEMPLATES) CURB EXTENSIONS ON SIDE-STREETS(PENDING TRUCK TURN TEMPLATES) INSTALL BIKE BOX ON SIDE-STREET THRU MOVEMENT RELOCATE BUS STOP TO FARSIDE (MAIN STREET) TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION - TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY TRAVELING WESTBOUND (QUEUE JUMP)

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 513
Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) CLASSIC TILE AND FLOORING INC. MEIS ARCHITECTS SMC OFFICES Study Intersection #3 Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study Concepts 10th Street IMPROVEMENTS LEGEND CURB BACK OF SIDEWALK LANE STRIPE BIKE LANE CONFLICT AREA PARKING SPACE STRIPE YIELD LINE SIDEWALK STREET CONCRETE BUS LANDING FIRE HYDRANT DELINEATOR POST PROPOSED ADA CURB RAMP IMPROVEMENTS N40 20SCALE: 1"=40'
0 40 IMPROVEMENTS CURB EXTENSIONS ON SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD (PENDING TRUCK TURN TEMPLATES) PROPOSED HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK RIGHT-TURN ONLY TREATMENT (SIDE STREET) RECONSTRUCT CURB RAMPS (UNI-DIRECTIONAL) CURB EXTENSIONS ON SIDE-STREETS (PENDING TRUCK TURN TEMPLATES) INSTALLATION OF CENTER-LINE HARDENING INSTALLATION OF PAINTED CURB STRIPING PROPOSED RAPID RECTANGULAR FLASHING BEACON (RRFB) PROPOSED YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS SIGN 11.A.a Packet Pg. 514
Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) KIA SANTA MONICA STOKES TIRE SERVICE Study Intersection #4 Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study Concepts 11th Street IMPROVEMENTS SANTA MONICA AUDI PARTS DEPARTMENT LEGEND CURB BACK OF SIDEWALK LANE STRIPE BIKE LANE CONFLICT AREA PARKING SPACE STRIPE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SIDEWALK STREET CONCRETE BUS LANDING FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING BUS STOP PROPOSED BUS STOP RELOCATION SMC PERFORMING ARTS CENTER PARKING PROPOSED ADA CURB RAMP N40 20SCALE: 1"=40' 0 40 IMPROVEMENTS TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION - LEAD PEDESTRIAN INTERVALS (LPI'S) INSTALLATION OF ACTIVATED PUSH BUTTONS BIKE LANE CONFLICT STRIPING ACROSS INTERSCTION BIKE LANE MODIFICATIONS (MINOR STREET) RECONSTRUCT CURB RAMPS (UNI-DIRECTIONAL) TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION - PROTECTED LEFT-TURN TRAVELING EASTBOUND. RELOCATE BUS STOP TO FARSIDE 11.A.a Packet Pg. 515
Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) CHEVRON MILLER'S LOCKSHOP THE ROOM SANTA MONICABLUDSO'S BBQ COFFEE COMMISSARY Study Intersection #5 Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study Concepts 14th Street LEGEND CURB BACK OF SIDEWALK LANE STRIPE BIKE LANE CONFLICT AREA PARKING SPACE STRIPE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SIDEWALK STREET CONCRETE BUS LANDING FIRE HYDRANT EXISTING BUS STOP PROPOSED BUS STOP RELOCATION PROPOSED ADA CURB RAMP TESLA SUPERCHARGER'SSANTA MONICA FORD N40 20SCALE: 1"=40' 0 40 IMPROVEMENTS TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION - LEAD PEDESTRIAN INTERVALS (LPI'S) RELOCATE BUS STOP TO FARSIDE BIKE LANE CONFLICT STRIPING ACROSS INTERSCTION BIKE LANE MODIFICATIONS (MINOR STREET) RECONSTRUCT CURB RAMPS (UNI-DIRECTIONAL) INSTALLATION OF ACTIVATED PUSH BUTTONS 11.A.a Packet Pg. 516
Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) 15TH ST LIQUOR Study Intersection #6 Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study Concepts 15th Street LEGEND CURB BACK OF SIDEWALK LANE STRIPE BIKE LANE CONFLICT AREA PARKING SPACE STRIPE YIELD LINE SIDEWALK STREET CONCRETE BUS LANDING FIRE HYDRANT DELINEATOR POST PROPOSED ADA CURB RAMP SANTA MONICA IPHONE SCREEN REPAIR THRIFTY CAR RENTAL TESLA SUPERCHARGER LEXUS SANTA MONICA LEXUS SANTA MONICA N40 20SCALE: 1"=40' 0 40 IMPROVEMENTS CURB EXTENSIONS ON SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD (PENDING TRUCK TURN TEMPLATES) REFRESH EXISTING HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK RIGHT-TURN ONLY TREATMENT (SIDE STREET) RECONSTRUCT CURB RAMPS (UNI-DIRECTIONAL) RELOCATE EXISTING RAPID RECTANGULAR FLASHING BEACON (RRFB) INSTALLATION OF PAINTED CURB STRIPING INSTALLATION OF CENTER-LINE HARDENING EXISTING YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS SIGN 11.A.a Packet Pg. 517
Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Study Intersection #7 Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study Concepts 16th Street LEGEND CURB BACK OF SIDEWALK LANE STRIPE BIKE LANE CONFLICT AREA PARKING SPACE STRIPE YIELD LINE SIDEWALK STREET CONCRETE BUS LANDING FIRE HYDRANT DELINEATOR POST PROPOSED ADA CURB RAMP DK'S DONUTS AND BAKERY LEXUS SANTA MONICA LEXUS SANTA MONICA VACANT BUILDING VOLVO CARS SANTA MONICA N40 20SCALE: 1"=40'
0 40 IMPROVEMENTS CURB EXTENSIONS ON SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD (PENDING TRUCK TURN TEMPLATES) REFRESH EXISTING HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK RIGHT-TURN ONLY TREATMENT (SIDE STREET) RECONSTRUCT CURB RAMPS (UNI-DIRECTIONAL) REMOVAL OF EXISTING PEDESTRIAN REFUGE INSTALLATION OF PAINTED CURB STRIPING CURB EXTENSIONS ON SIDE-STREETS (PENDING TRUCK TURN TEMPLATES) INSTALLATION OF CENTER-LINE HARDENING RELOCATE EXISTING RAPID RECTANGULAR FLASHING BEACON (RRFB) YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS SIGN 11.A.a Packet Pg. 518
Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Study Intersection #8 Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study Concepts 18th Street MIDWAY CAR RENTAL BRENTWOOD HONDA DEALER VACANT LOT LEGEND CURB BACK OF SIDEWALK LANE STRIPE BIKE LANE CONFLICT AREA PARKING SPACE STRIPE YIELD LINE SIDEWALK STREET CONCRETE BUS LANDING FIRE HYDRANT DELINEATOR POST PROPOSED ADA CURB RAMP RAPID RECTANGULAR FLASHING BEACON (RRFB) YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS SIGN N40 20SCALE: 1"=40' 0 40 HONDA PRE-OWNED VEHICLES IMPROVEMENTS CURB EXTENSIONS ON SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD (PENDING TRUCK TURN TEMPLATES) RIGHT-TURN ONLY TREATMENT (SIDE STREET) RECONSTRUCT CURB RAMPS (UNI-DIRECTIONAL) CURB EXTENSIONS ON SIDE-STREETS (PENDING TRUCK TURN TEMPLATES) INSTALLATION OF PAINTED CURB STRIPING INSTALLATION OF CENTER-LINE HARDENING 11.A.a Packet Pg. 519
Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Study Intersection #9 Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study Concepts 19th Street CURB BACK OF SIDEWALK LANE STRIPE BIKE LANE CONFLICT AREA PARKING SPACE STRIPE YIELD LINE SIDEWALK STREET CONCRETE BUS LANDING FIRE HYDRANT DELINEATOR POST PROPOSED ADA CURB RAMP MASERATI OF SANTA MONICA SMC PHARMACY SANTA MONICA MUSIC CENTER HONDA PRE-OWNED VEHICLES N40 20SCALE: 1"=40'
0 40 IMPROVEMENTS LEGEND CURB EXTENSIONS ON SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD (PENDING TRUCK TURN TEMPLATES) PROPOSED HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK RIGHT-TURN ONLY TREATMENT (SIDE STREET) RECONSTRUCT CURB RAMPS (UNI-DIRECTIONAL) CURB EXTENSIONS ON SIDE-STREETS (PENDING TRUCK TURN TEMPLATES) INSTALLATION OF CENTER-LINE HARDENING INSTALLATION OF PAINTED CURB STRIPING PROPOSED RAPID RECTANGULAR FLASHING BEACON (RRFB) PROPOSED YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS SIGN 11.A.a Packet Pg. 520
Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Study Intersection #10 Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study Concepts 20th Street LEGEND CURB BACK OF SIDEWALK LANE STRIPE BIKE LANE CONFLICT AREA PARKING SPACE STRIPE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SIDEWALK STREET CONCRETE BUS LANDING FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED ADA CURB RAMP EXISTING BUS STOP SOCALO 10 SPEED COFFEE CEDARS SINAI THE MEDICAL CENTRE OF SANTA MONICA UCLA HEALTH SANTA MONICA CARDIOLOGYN40 20SCALE: 1"=40' 0 40 IMPROVEMENTS TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION - LEAD PEDESTRIAN INTERVALS (LPI'S) NO RIGHT-TURN ON RED TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION - PROTECTED LEFT-TURN TRAVELING EASTBOUND RECONSTRUCT CURB RAMPS (UNI-DIRECTIONAL)

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 521
Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study)

MCKINLEY SCHOOL UCLA MEDICAL GROUP VOLKSWAGEN SANTA MONICA BIG WAVES LAUNDROMAT (ONE-WAY SB) Study Intersection #11 Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study Concepts Chelsea Avenue LEGEND CURB BACK OF SIDEWALK LANE STRIPE BIKE LANE CONFLICT AREA PARKING SPACE STRIPE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SIDEWALK STREET CONCRETE BUS LANDING RAISED LANDSCAPED MEDIAN RAISED MEDIAN EXISTING CURB RAMP N40 20SCALE: 1"=40' 0 40 IMPROVEMENTS RECONSTRUCT CURB RAMPS (UNI-DIRECTIONAL) PROPOSED HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL WITH BICYCLE DETECTION NEW PEDESTRIAN REFUGE NEW RAISED LANDSCAPED MEDIAN NEW STRIPED MEDIAN RIGHT-TURN ONLY TREATMENT (SIDE STREET) WITH NO RIGHT-TURN ON RED BLANK OUT SIGN BIKE LANE MEDIAN OPENING NEW RAISED MEDIAN WITH BIKE LANE PROPOSED ADA CURB RAMP FIRE HYDRANT REMOVE PARKING AND ADD CLASS II BIKE LANE NEW CLASS III BIKE LANE 11.A.a Packet Pg. 522
Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) SIR SPEEDY COFFEE SHOP THE RICH SPA NOW SEDLER'S SHOE REPAIR ALLAN JEFFRIES FRAMING Study Intersection #12 Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study Concepts 26th Street LEGEND CURB BACK OF SIDEWALK LANE STRIPE BIKE LANE CONFLICT AREA PARKING SPACE STRIPE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SIDEWALK STREET CONCRETE BUS LANDING EXISTING CURB RAMP EXISTING BUS STOP PROPOSED ADA CURB RAMP VACANT BUILDING CVS PHARMACY APARTMENT COMPLEX NAMITA'S EYEBROW THREADING SALON N40 20SCALE: 1"=40' 0 40 IMPROVEMENTS TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION - LEAD PEDESTRIAN INTERVALS (LPI'S) TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION - TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY TRAVELING WESTBOUND (QUEUE JUMP) PROPOSED BUS BULB ON SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD CURB EXTENSIONS ON SIDE-STREETS (PENDING TRUCK TURN TEMPLATES) ADDED PARKING STALLS 11.A.a Packet Pg. 523
Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) SIR SPEEDY MCDONALD'S RIP CITY SKATES LUCKY'S PET GROOMING AE GERMAN CAR SERVICE COFFEE SHOP THE RICH SPA NOW SEDLER'S SHOE REPAIR Study Intersection #13 Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study Concepts Princeton Street LEGEND CURB BACK OF SIDEWALK LANE STRIPE BIKE LANE CONFLICT AREA PARKING SPACE STRIPE YIELD LINE SIDEWALK STREET CONCRETE BUS LANDING RAISED LANDSCAPED MEDIAN DELINEATOR POST PROPOSED ADA CURB RAMP N40 20SCALE: 1"=40' 0 40 PROPOSED YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS SIGN IMPROVEMENTS NEW PEDESTRIAN REFUGE REFRESH EXISTING HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK RIGHT-TURN ONLY TREATMENT (SIDE STREET) NEW RAISED LANDSCAPED MEDIAN NEW STRIPED MEDIAN RECONSTRUCT CURB RAMPS (UNI-DIRECTIONAL) PROPOSED RAPID RECTANGULAR FLASHING BEACON (RRFB) IMPROVEMENTS 11.A.a Packet Pg. 524
Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) X MAJOR MOTOR CARS BUNDA FITNESS CENTER DAYS INN LITTLE LUNCH / OFFHAND COFFEE WINE EXPO SANTA MONICA SCHOOL OF DANCE AND MUSIC Study Intersection #14 Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study Concepts Stanford Street LEGEND CURB BACK OF SIDEWALK LANE STRIPE BIKE LANE CONFLICT AREA PARKING SPACE STRIPE YIELD LINE SIDEWALK STREET CONCRETE BUS LANDING EXISTING CURB RAMP DELINEATOR POST PROPOSED ADA CURB RAMP RAISED LANDSCAPED MEDIAN N40 20SCALE: 1"=40' 0 40 IMPROVEMENTS NEW PEDESTRIAN REFUGE PROPOSED HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK RIGHT-TURN ONLY TREATMENT (SIDE STREET) NEW RAISED LANDSCAPED MEDIAN RECONSTRUCT CURB RAMPS (UNI-DIRECTIONAL) PROPOSED RAPID RECTANGULAR FLASHING BEACON (RRFB) PROPOSED YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS SIGN PROPOSED PEAK HOUR BUS/PARKING LANE

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 525
Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) HEARING AID SONECA MATRIAL ARTSPTAK FAMILY SOUL MASSAGE CHIROPRACTIC AWESOME DENTAL SUPER DENTAL CARE SUPER LASH SPA BOX 'N BURN SANTA MONICA BOXING FITNESS GYM WILLOW SPA Study Intersection #15 Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Enhancement Study Concepts Franklin Street LEGEND CURB BACK OF SIDEWALK LANE STRIPE BIKE LANE CONFLICT AREA PARKING SPACE STRIPE YIELD LINE SIDEWALK STREET CONCRETE BUS LANDING FIRE HYDRANT DELINEATOR POST PROPOSED ADA CURB RAMP RAISED LANDSCAPED MEDIAN N40 20SCALE: 1"=40' 0 40 IMPROVEMENTS NEW PEDESTRIAN REFUGE PROPOSED HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK RIGHT-TURN ONLY TREATMENT (SIDE STREET) NEW RAISED LANDSCAPED MEDIAN RECONSTRUCT CURB RAMPS (UNI-DIRECTIONAL) PROPOSED RAPID RECTANGULAR FLASHING BEACON (RRFB) PROPOSED YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS SIGN PROPOSED PEAK HOUR BUS/PARKING LANE

11.A.a
Packet Pg. 526
Attachment: A. Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study and Appendices (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Local Road Safety Plan
April 2022

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: B. Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | i
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction...................................................................................................................................................1 Data Summary.............................................................................................................................................6 Prioritizing Actions...................................................................................................................................39 Table of Figures
Page
Figure 1 Sample of Key Safety Projects...............................................................................................4 Figure 2 Crash Severity Weighting........................................................................................................6 Figure 3 Total Injury Crashes on Streets Under the City’s Jurisdiction by Year and Mode........7 Figure 4 Fatal and Severe Crashes by Year.......................................................................................8 Figure 5 Weighted Density of Crashes in Santa Monica...................................................................9 Figure 6 Severity of Crashes by Mode..............................................................................................10 Figure 7 Frequency and Severity of Crashes by Mode..................................................................11 Figure 8 Crash Type of Fatal and Severe Collisions.......................................................................11 Figure 9 Top Five Primary Crash Factor Violation Category for Fatal and Severe Crashes.....................................................................................................................................12 Figure 10 Priority Network with Pacific Coast Highway Included, 2015-2019...........................13 Figure 11 Top Crash Locations: Signalized intersections, 2015-2019...........................................15 Figure 12 Top Signalized Intersections Overall..................................................................................16 Figure 13 Top Signalized Intersections: Crashes Involving Active Modes (Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and People on Scooters)......................................................................................17 Figure 14 Top Signalized Intersections: Crashes Taking Place After Dark....................................18 Figure 15 Top Crash Locations: Unsignalized intersections, 2015-2019.......................................19 Figure 16 Top Crash Locations at Unsignalized Intersections Overall............................................20 Figure 17 Top Crash Locations at Unsignalized Intersections Involving Active Modes (Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and People on Scooters).............................................................20 Figure 18 Top Crash Locations at Unsignalized Intersections Taking Place After Dark..............21 Figure 19 Time of Day and Day of Week of All Crashes................................................................22 Figure 20 Time of Day and Day of Week of Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes..........................23 Figure 21 Lighting Conditions by Severity of Crash...........................................................................24 Figure 22 Severity of Crashes by Posted or Prima Facie Speed of Primary Roadway.............25 Figure 23 Frequency and Severity of Crashes by Posted or Prima Facie Speed of Primary Roadway..................................................................................................................................25 Figure 24 Posted Speeds and Crash Locations Weighted by Severity.........................................26 Figure 25 Frequency and Severity of Crashes by AADT of Primary Roadway...........................27 Figure 26 Injury Level as Percent of Total by AADT of Primary Roadway...................................27 Figure 27 Traffic Volumes and Weighted Crash Locations..............................................................28 Figure 28 Age Distribution of All Parties Involved in Crashes Compared to the 2019 Age Distribution of Santa Monica Population............................................................................29

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: B. Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | ii
Figure 29 Age Distribution of Pedestrians Involved in Crashes Compared to the 2019 Age Distribution of Santa Monica Population............................................................................30 Figure 30 Age Distribution of Bicyclists Involved in Crashes Compared to 2019 Age Distribution of Santa Monica Population............................................................................30 Figure 31 Age of Killed and Severely Injured Victims by Mode.....................................................31 Figure 32 Reported Race or Ethnicity of Pedestrians Involved in Crashes, 2015-2018............32 Figure 33 Reported Race or Ethnicity of Bicyclists Involved in Crashes, 2015-2018..................32 Figure 34 Reported Race of Pedestrians and Bicyclists Involved in Fatal and Severe Crashes Compared to Santa Monica Population, 2015-2018.....................................33 Figure 35 All Crashes Involving Pedestrians........................................................................................33 Figure 36 Fatal and Severe Crashes Involving Pedestrians.............................................................34 Figure 37 All Crashes Involving Bicyclists..............................................................................................35 Figure 38 Fatal and Severe Crashes Involving Bicyclists...................................................................35 Figure 39 The Priority Network and People of Color by Census Block Group............................37 Figure 40 The Priority Network and CalEnviroScreen Scores..........................................................38 Figure 41 Top Priority Network Segments by CalEnviroScreen Score...........................................39 Figure 42 Top Ten Signalized Intersections by CalEnviroScreen Score..........................................40 Figure 43 Top Ten Unsignalized Intersections by CalEnviroScreen Score......................................41

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: B. Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 1

INTRODUCTION
The City of Santa Monica has a long-standing commitment to enhance safety for all road users with the adopted aim to eliminate fatal and severe injury crashes from occurring in the city by 2026. The City has established guiding transportation safety programs, policies, and goals with the following planning documents: Land Use and Circulation Element (2010), Bike Action Plan (2011), Pedestrian Action Plan (2016), Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (2019), and Bike Action Plan Amendment (2020). This long tradition of expanding mobility choices for people that live, work, and play in Santa Monica is founded on creating a transportation network with increased and targeted safety enhancements that serve users of all ages and abilities. This Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) builds upon previous work by analyzing the latest available crash data to prioritize safety improvements throughout the City. The LRSP is a technical requirement for the California Department of Transportation’s Highway Safety Improvement Program and will facilitate the City’s efforts to apply for future grant funds.

Vision & Goals
The City’s Vision Zero commitment was adopted on February 23, 2016 with the premise that fatal and severe injury collisions are unacceptable. The premise led to the guiding vision for the Santa Monica Department of Transportation (SaMoDOT): reduce the number of fatal and severe injury crashes to zero by 2026.

SaMoDOT will achieve this vision byidentifying the measures necessary to care for the wellbeing of everyone, while increasing health, safety, and promoting equitable mobility for all.

Safety Partners
SaMoDOT staff convenes an interdepartmental Vision Zero working group that meets quarterly to review crash data. The internal departmental partners include staff from:
 Police
 Fire
 Public Works
 SaMoDOT - Big Blue Bus
 SaMoDOT - Mobility
 City Attorney’s Office
 Office of Communications
The group was created in 2017 to increase the transparency and frequency of crash data sharing between departments. In addition to identifying locations with high concentrations of crashes, the group reviews crash patterns to identify resources that would help prevent future crashes (e.g., developing communication strategies to educate drivers about roadway safety and identifying locations where deployment of City resources would help alleviate a pattern of crashes).

The Vision Zero working group played an integral part in the development of the LRSP and was consulted to verify the crash data and development of the emphasis areas. Each City partner provided specific insight to address roadway safety: Police and Fire provided insightful

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: B. Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2
perspectives into historic crashes and first-hand knowledge of the daily traffic and crash patterns present in the City; Communications provided input on messaging and outreach; Mobility and Public Works guided the general framework on advancing safety related infrastructure projects; Big Blue Bus led the transit safety discussion; the City Attorney’s Office informed legal considerations.

Process
The LRSP provides an overview of existing conditions and analyzes the last five years (2015-2019) of crash data to update and identify corridors and intersections where the highest number of crashes are taking place. Additional priority was given to crashes that occur in communities with negative health outcomes as identified by the state of California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s CalEnviroScreen tool, a screening tool used to help identify communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution and with population characteristics that make them more sensitive to pollution. This combination of crash intensity and social equity helped develop a plan of action to implement proven safety measures.

Existing Efforts
Since the adoption of the Vision Zero program, SaMoDOTanalyzed crash data from 2006-2016 and identified locations with high concentrations of crashes. This work effort resulted in the Vision Zero Priority Map (Figure 1). Staff used the map to create a work plan to alleviate and prevent future crashes. Figure 2identifies a sample of key safety projects and actions taken or planned to improve safety.

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: B. Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022 City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3
Figure 1 Vision Zero Priority Map, 2017

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: B. Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4
Figure 2 Sample of Key Safety Projects
Project Description Status Result
Safety evaluation of the top 10
priority intersections identified in
the Vision Zero priority map (Figure
1)
Complete All intersections have been evaluated and have a concept design to address safety issues. Six of the
intersections have funding identified to construct the
concept safety improvements.

Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
signal timing at key intersections in
the city
Complete Installed LPIs at 54 intersections since 2018
Colorado Esplanade Complete Installed new pedestrian sidewalk and protected cycletrack on Colorado Avenue between Ocean
Avenue and 5th Street
Pedestrian scrambles Complete Installed a total of 11 pedestrian scrambles in June 2016
Wilshire Boulevard Safety Study Complete Completed safety evaluation of Wilshire Boulevard in February 2020; first phase of safety enhancements to
be installed in 2022
Protected bikeways on Ocean
Avenue and Broadway
Complete Installed 4 block protected bikeway pilot on Broadway in March 2020 and protected bikeway on Ocean
Avenue on 4 blocks in November 2020; Bike Action
Plan Amendment calls for extending the protected
bikeway on these corridors in the future
Pico Boulevard and 3rd Street
connection
Under
construction
Install a new crosswalk, additional Rapid Rectangular
Flashing beacons, and other quick build
improvements
Road safety enhancements around
10 SMMUSD Santa Monica
schools
Four locations
complete,
remaining six
locations in
design
Completed safety improvements at four SMMUSD
school sites. The remaining six sites are in design.

The improvements include curb extensions,
crosswalk and ramp upgrades, enhancements to
existing bicycle facilities, pick-up/drop-off circulation improvements, and new school signage.

Pedestrian crossing improvements
at Olympic Boulevard and 26th
Street
Funding
secured for
design
Funding identified for design and outreach in 2022
Protected bicycle facility on
Broadway from 5th Street to 26th
Street
Funding
secured for
design
Funding identified for design and outreach in 2022
Pedestrian safety improvements on
Pico Boulevard between 16th
Street and Cloverfield Boulevard
Funding
secured for
construction
Construction scheduled to start by Spring 2022
Safety study of eastern section of
Pico Boulevard with quick build
safety enhancements
Funding
secured for
design
Funding identified for community engagement and
safety evaluation in 2022

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: B. Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5
A large proportion of the projects identified in 2016 are in the process of being implemented or are complete. This LRSP will enable the City to refresh the safety data and continue advancing successful transportation safety projects.

Vision Zero Campaign
As part of the ongoing commitment to safety, the Vision Zero program also includes an outreach and education campaign called Take the Friendly Road. The campaign aims to increase traffic safety awareness, improve driving behavior, and highlight capital interventions. The campaign was amplified by participation from local community partners including schools, neighborhood associations, business districts, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance, Santa Monica Spoke, and Adopt-a-Walk. These efforts resulted in:
 The campaign had over 16 million impressions generated by utilizing digital and traditional media, including advertisements on the Big Blue Bus and Metro buses and Expo trains, banners posted on light poles along Wilshire Boulevard, messages hung on local park and construction site fencing, messages on the digital overhead signage located in the downtown and beach areas, and social media.
 In partnership with the Safe Routes to School program, over 1,700 lawn signs were distributed to allow people to show their support for road safety while reinforcing a key campaign message: slow down.
 Stop, look, wave stencils were added to crosswalks to remind pedestrians to be vigilant at the ten priority intersections where fatal and severe injury crashes were most prevalent between 2006-2016.
 Placement of the campaign logo on all City-issued parking hangtags provided a reminder to drivers to look out for vulnerable road users.
 Staff developed an online community feedback map that received over 900 comments from the community. The public input was used to inform the LRSP evaluation and give a nuanced, community-informed understanding of the transportation safety issues impacting the city.

The Take the Friendly Road campaign will continue to be the public facing communication point for the public to learn about capital projects or other safety related initiatives from the City.

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: B. Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6

DATA SUMMARY
Data Sources
The Santa Monica Local Road Safety Plan(LRSP) analysis looks at crashesin Santa Monica from 2015-2019, excluding those that involvedproperty damage only. California Statewide Integrated Traffic Record System (SWITRS) data for 2015-2018 was acquired via the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) developed by SafeTREC at UC Berkeley and is used for 2015-2018 crash data. At the time of the analysis, crash data from 2019 was provisional, meaning it could still be amended. Therefore, 2019 data was acquired from the City of Santa Monica’s Crossroads crash database. The 2015-2018 data sourced from TIMS includes geographic information for96% of all reported crashes. The remaining 4% could not be mapped. The 2019 data from Crossroads includes geographic information for 92% of all reported crashes, with the other 8% unmapped.

The analysis includes only those crashes that occurred on streets under the City’s jurisdiction, with the exception of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), which is under Caltrans jurisdiction. PCH was included because the City provides enforcement and some regulatory authority on a portion of the highway. Crashes that took place at the intersection of a street under the City’s jurisdiction with a ramp leading to or from U.S. 10 or PCH are also included.

Overall Crash Trends
This section examines where, when, and why most crashes occur, includingpatterns specific to serious injury or fatality crashes.As part of prior safety planning efforts using crashdata from 2006 to 2017, the City identified priority road segments and intersections for safety improvements. Santa Monicahas made great progress investigating the locations identified. For the majority of locations, the City has either installed new safety enhancements, obtained grant funding to advance safety projects, orput in place a planto enhance safety improvements with local resources. Some examples of this work include the new protected bikeway installed on Ocean Avenue; the recently completed Wilshire Boulevard Safety Study, which identifies safety improvement for four priority intersections; and grant funding obtained to install bicyclistand pedestrian crossing improvements at 26th Street and Olympic Boulevard to improve connections to the Metro E (Expo) Light Rail Station. TheLRSP builds upon this foundational work by refreshing the City’s crashanalysis with the newest available data and identifying the next phase of locations to focus education, planning, and engineering resources on.

To identify high-crash locations, crashes are weighted according to their severity. The weighting is based on crash cost estimates from Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Manual.

Figure 3 Crash Severity Weighting
Crash Type Crash Cost Weight
Fatal and Severe Injury $1,590,000 22
Other Visible Injury $142,300 2
Complaint of Pain $80,900 1
From 2015-2019, there were 2,334 crashes on Santa Monica’s local streets. The greatest number, 500, occurred in 2015. After a decrease in 2016, the number of crashes has gradually trended up again. This is largely due to variation in the number of crashes involving motor vehicles only, as

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: B. Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 7
the number of crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclistsis fairly consistent year after year. The widespread use of scooters, including the introduction of a system of shared scooters in the fall of 2018, also accounted for a greater number of crashes in the last two years of the study period.

According to a detailed examination of crash records (see below), scooters were involved in 60 and 58 crashes in 2018 and 2019, respectively, after being involved in few crashes the previous three years.

As stated before, this LRSP uses TIMS data for 2015-2018 and Crossroads data for 2019.

However, in response to concerns that scooter crashes were not fully reflected in TIMS data, and were sometimes miscoded in Crossroads, City staff performed a detailed analysis of 2015-2019 Crossroads data to identify a more complete set of scooter crashes.They found a substantially higher number of scooter crashes than were tabulated in the baseline estimate shown in Figure 2.

The more refined estimates for 2015-2019 Crossroads data are as follows:
 2015 and 2016: one crash involving a scooter per year; one fatalityor severe injury  2017: seven scooter crashes
 2018: 60 scooter crashes; four fatalities or severe injuries  2019: 58 scooter crashes; eight fatalities or severe injuries Figure 4shows crashes by mode and year from the TIMS data, as that is the primary data source used in this report.Given the findings above, however, it should be noted that scooter crashes in Figure 4and throughout this LRSP are underreported.

Figure 4 Total Injury Crashes on Streets Under the City’s Jurisdictionby Year and Mode 339
270
283
301
286
94 82
82 86
73 67
78 90 79
82 5
37 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Injury Crashes
Scooter
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Motor Vehicle Only

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: B. Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 8
There were 125 fatal and severe injury (FSI) crashes during the 2015-2019 timeframe.Of the five years included in the analysis,2019 saw the highest number of fatal and severe crashes. While fatalities in 2019 were not the highest of any year analyzed, severe injury crashesin 2019 were double those in 2015. Some of this difference may be due to the use of a different data source for 2019(Crossroads instead of TIMS)than for the other years.See Figure 5.

Figure 5 Fatal and Severe Crashes by Year
Figure 6provides a map of all crashes in the city from 2015-2019.For visual clarity, only points representing fatal or severe injury crashes are shown. Crashes are concentrated in downtown Santa Monica—which is bounded by Wilshire Boulevard on the north, Ocean Avenue on the west, Colorado Avenue on the south, and Lincoln Boulevard on the east—and on major east-west arterials, such as Wilshire Boulevard.
2 4
6 3
17 20
21 18
34 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal Severe

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: B. Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022 City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 9
Figure 6 Weighted Density of Crashes in Santa Monica

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: B. Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 10
Crashes By Mode and Severity
Figure 7 illustrates the severity of crashes by mode.As noted in the previous section, there are discrepancies between TIMS data (used for 2015-2018 data reportingthroughout this LRSP) and Crossroadsdata (used for 2019) with regard to how crashesinvolving scooters are reported. As such, Figure 7 underrepresents the proportion of fatal or severe injury crashes involving scooters.

Figure 7 Severity of Crashes by Mode
Pedestriansare more likely to be involved in a fatal or severe injury crash than any other mode.

While 17% of all crashes involve a pedestrian, they comprise 42% of fatal or severe injury crashes.

Similarly, bicyclists are involved in 18% of all crashes but account for 20% of fatal or severe injury crashes. People riding scooters represent a small portion of total crashes, 2%, but comprise4% of fatal or severe injury crashes. Figure 8 provides a detailed breakdown of the frequency and severity of crashes by mode.
3 40
547
889
1 24
265
127
5 28
9 11
41 192
152
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Percent of Crashes
Motor Vehicle Only Bicycle Scooter Pedestrian

11.A.b
Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: B. Santa Monica Local Roadway Safety Plan (7371 : Santa Monica Blvd Safety Study) Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 11
Figure 8 Frequency and Severity of Crashes by Mode
Mode Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain
Total by
Mode
Percent
FSI
Percent
of all
Crashes
Percent
of FSI
Crashes
Motor Vehicle
Only
3 40 547 889 1,479 3% 63% 34%
Bicycle 1 24 265 127 417 6% 18% 20%
Scooter 0 5 28 9 42 12% 2% 4%
Pedestrian 11 41 192 152 396 13% 17% 42%
Total by Injury
Severity
15 110 1,032 1,177 2,334
Crash Characteristics
The most reportedfatal and severe crash type is vehicle/pedestrian. The second most common is broadside (vehicle/vehicle). Thirty-six fatal or severe crashes did not specify a crash type. Staff reviewed reports for these crashes and were able to determine the crashtype for all but four of them. Figure 9provides a summary of crash type of fatal and severe collisions. Eleven remain in the “other” category. Six of these involve a person riding a motorcycle, scooter, or bicycle losing control of their vehicle; two involve a bicyclist hit by the opening door of a parked car.

Santa Monica City CouncilFebruary 24, 2026

Santa Monica City Council
February 24, 2026